ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Air Quality

Jonathan Reynolds: What plans she has to improve air quality.

Tom Clarke: What plans she has to improve air quality.

John McDonnell: What plans she has to improve air quality.

Richard Benyon: As you know, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for food and farming, is not here today as he is representing the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.
	Air quality in the UK is much improved, though more needs to be done, especially in cities, where transport is the main issue. We must strike a balance between protecting health and the environment and supporting sustainable economic growth. Working with local authorities and others, we are investing significantly in cleaner, more sustainable transport. Underperformance against European vehicle emissions standards is making compliance on nitrogen dioxide challenging for us and many other member states.

Jonathan Reynolds: I welcome the Minister’s comments about air quality in cities, but I understand that air quality compliance in Greater Manchester and 16 other areas in the UK will now not be reached until 2020. Given the heavily congested roads, such as the A57, which goes through Mottram and Hollingworth in my constituency, I am not surprised. The A57 goes past Hollingworth primary school. How many children in England and Wales as a whole live or go to school within 150 metres of roads carrying 10,000 vehicles or more on average? Does the Minister feel that the Government’s strategy is adequate to improve air quality for them?

Richard Benyon: DEFRA does not hold information on the location of schools. Local authorities have duties to improve air quality and the responsibility is shared between Government and local authorities. We have provided funding for a range of possibilities, including green transport initiatives, and many local authorities are responding really well. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are real challenges in some urban areas, particularly with nitrogen dioxide levels. We are seeking to assist local authorities in trying to deal with hot spots, particularly when they are close to schools.

Tom Clarke: Will the Minister tell the House the Government’s latest estimate, in percentage terms, of annual exposure to nitrogen dioxide for the poorest quintile of the population in England and Wales compared with the wealthiest?

Richard Benyon: The way in which member states quantify where they stand with regard to air pollution varies. In this country, we have a very rigorous system that divides the country into 43 air quality zones. If one area in a zone is failing, the whole zone is deemed to have failed. It is up to local authorities to work with the Government to deal with problems when they occur, when there are high levels of deprivation and, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned, around schools. It is important that local authorities with access to that information use the funding that the Government give to address problems with air quality.

John McDonnell: When people enter this country—for example, to visit the Olympics—they land in the most air polluted area of the country. The Mayor’s strategy does not seem to have worked, the local air quality management zone has barely scraped the surface and we need a fresh initiative. Will the Minister meet me, a delegation of local councillors and others to see whether we can launch a fresh initiative, particularly around the Heathrow area?

Richard Benyon: I know that the hon. Gentleman works closely with agencies in the area, particularly on air quality issues emanating from Heathrow. My noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who leads on this issue, will, I am sure, be willing to meet him and others to ensure that there are local strategies. I should point out that the Mayor, through his air quality strategy, has addressed many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are starting to see improvements in a number of areas and I look forward to being able to report improvements in London for 2011.

Stephen Mosley: Will my hon. Friend update the House on progress to improve air quality through the work of the clean air fund?

Richard Benyon: Clean air fund measures are locally targeted to reduce PM10s by 10% to 20%. They include green infrastructure, dust suppressants, retrofitted buses and dealing with traffic hot spots where the stop-start of traffic has caused severe or marked increases in air pollution.

Fiona O'Donnell: Unbelievable! This is the second biggest public health challenge that the country faces, but all we have are excuses and
	inaction from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. With an estimated 29,000 premature—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	We are talking about premature deaths, so I think that Government Members should quieten down. With an estimated 29,000 premature deaths a year in the UK from air pollution, why does the only action taken by DEFRA try to weaken EU laws that seek to protect the public?

Richard Benyon: That last point is completely wrong. In fact, there is a meeting next week in Geneva on the measures that we have taken as part of the Gothenburg agreement that will result in further improvements in air quality. There is no doubt that air quality has a marked effect on people’s health, particularly if they suffer from heart or lung conditions. We have begun to improve things, but a big challenge remains in London. The Mayor inherited poor air-quality conditions and, as a result of his strategy, we have begun to see big improvements.

Dangerous Dogs

Alex Cunningham: What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

Michael McCann: What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

Luciana Berger: What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

Jessica Morden: What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

John Woodcock: What her policy is on the control of dangerous dogs and tackling irresponsible dog owners; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to say that on 23 April, the Government announced a consultation on measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners. These measures include extending the existing dangerous dogs laws to cover all private property in England and a requirement that all puppies be compulsorily microchipped.

Alex Cunningham: A number of residents in Stillington in my Stockton North constituency are angry that the police and everyone else feel powerless to deal with a dangerous dog in their village just because it has not yet attacked a human being. They fear that a child rather than an animal could be the next victim. Will the Minister explain to the people of Stillington how the proposed legislation will prevent an attack of that nature?

Caroline Spelman: The dangerous dogs legislation already provides powers for the police, and local authorities have powers to tackle the problem of dogs that are
	dangerously out of control. The new measures will bring additional tools to the toolkit. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is absurd that policemen in that village have to think twice about going on to private property to investigate and pursue a possible dangerous dog case because they fear that they are not currently properly protected by the law on private property? The change in the law represents a significant step forward.

Michael McCann: Will the Secretary of State explain how microchipping puppies bred by responsible, registered breeders will deal with those irresponsible back-street breeders who churn out unloved and mistreated, dangerous, status and weapon dogs?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many animal charities, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, share with the Government a determination to stamp out irresponsible dog breeding. Responsible dog breeders, who already chip their puppies, set an example to all dog breeders on the importance of chipping new-born dogs. The proposed way forward is to encourage chipping of puppies to ensure that at the point of sale we can identify where they have come from.

Luciana Berger: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), it has taken the Government two years to introduce measures to tackle dangerous dogs. The consultation on dangerous dogs concluded in June 2010, and it is now April 2012. Nothing announced on Monday will prevent dog attacks in the first place. Clarissa Baldwin, the chief executive of the Dogs Trust, said that she was “extremely disillusioned” with the lack of preventive measures in the Government’s announcement. Further to what the Secretary of State has said, the powers that will be extended to cover private property can be applied only when an attack has occurred—they do not prevent an attack in the first place. Will she tell the House how many dog attacks will be prevented as a direct result of the proposals that she announced on Monday?

Caroline Spelman: That is what I think is called a multi-part question. The hon. Lady is new, so she could be forgiven for not knowing that, while her Government recognised the inadequacy of existing legislation, there is a strong cross-party endeavour to deal with this terrible problem. It is complex, which is doubtless part of the reason why her Government did not get on and sort it out. We have proceeded with the consultation. What will help now is the £50,000 that I have given to animal charities and others to help to educate irresponsible dog owners on how to keep better control of their dogs.

Jessica Morden: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that coverage of the recent dog attacks on police officers in east London was deeply shocking. When will she respond to the requests from the Police Federation and serving front-line police officers for dog control notices, which will help to prevent such attacks? Does she understand the deep frustration of the police at yet another lengthy consultation?

Caroline Spelman: All of us want to make sure that the police and other professionals are properly protected when they go about visiting private property in the normal course of their duty. The package that we are proposing, which was set out on Monday, includes the extension of powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act to private land. The police have asked for help from the Government with training. I have provided resources to the Association of Chief Police Officers so that every constabulary in the country can have a trained dog officer. Local authorities have at their disposal dog control orders, which they can use to assist the police in dealing with this difficult and complex problem.

John Woodcock: May I read the Secretary of State what Claire Horton of the Battersea Cats and Dogs Home has to say on the right hon. Lady’s disappointing proposals? She says:
	“We question how much a priority tackling irresponsible ownership and improving public safety is for the Government. We fear this is just tinkering around the edges.”
	Does the Secretary of State believe that Ms Horton and everyone else is wrong and that she alone is right?

Caroline Spelman: Organisations such as Battersea Dogs Home have a terrible problem on their hands. Dogs homes are full to capacity with dogs that have had to be taken from the streets—100,000 strays a year and, tragically, 6,000 of those have to be put down. I am sure Battersea Dogs Home would agree that the measures that we have put in place, giving discretion to the police in relation to impounding a dog, and measures to educate irresponsible owners, as well as the resources that I have given the Battersea Dogs Home to help us tackle this problem, will all be welcomed.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the review and consultation. Will the Secretary of State extend the review to the Local Government Act 2010 to see whether the number of stray dogs has gone up since control passed to local authorities? Will she take the opportunity to close the current loophole with respect to attacks by dogs on other dogs and other animals, and extend the livestock provisions on worrying dogs to these other categories?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, makes some excellent points. Perhaps they are topics that the Select Committee might be interested in. The worrying of sheep, which is an understatement—it is often the death of sheep as a result of lack of control by the owners of dogs—is a very serious problem. I undertake to look at those issues.

Tony Baldry: As a member of the Kennel Club, I can say that the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and other responsible dog ownership groups have for a long time argued for microchipping, so my right hon. Friend will no doubt have the full support of all those organisations. Has she had a single constructive suggestion from those on the Opposition Benches on how she might deal with the issue?

Caroline Spelman: The 2010 consultation did indeed show strong support in principle among the public for compulsory microchipping. We are asking people specific, practical questions about how that should be implemented, our
	preference being the compulsory microchipping of puppies because of the additional advantage that it tackles irresponsible dog breeding. Yes, it would have been nice to have a little more cross-party support for an issue that is complicated and which, I know, Opposition Members have regularly taken up, to their credit, requesting the Government to do something. Well, we have, and it would be nice to have that welcomed.

James Gray: Despite the Secretary of State’s well-meaning proposals, does she agree that there is a risk that not one single criminal thug who breeds illegal dogs will go tripping into the vet to have his puppies microchipped, and that her proposals will result in a wonderful database of perfectly legal, decent, middle-class dog owners? It will have no effect whatever on illegal dogs and illegal owners.

Caroline Spelman: Obviously we cannot legislate against every thug. When I visited the RSPCA’s hospital in Harmsworth, what struck me was the consequences of irresponsible dog ownership, both for animals and people. I am very sensitive to the concerns of Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), whose constituent John-Paul Massey was lost as a result of a dangerous dog attack. Perhaps my hon. Friend would focus on the fact that it is the suffering of victims that we are trying to address in this package.

Simon Hart: Who will have access to data on microchipped dogs?

Caroline Spelman: The database is held by my Department.

Andrew Bridgen: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the burden on the NHS caused by injuries caused by dogs. Will she share with the House the figures for the number of people admitted to hospital with dog-related injuries in 2010?

Caroline Spelman: I am not sure about the number of people admitted to hospital, but the cost to the NHS is £3 million a year. Let us not forget that among the professionals whom we currently ask to take risks by going into private property are midwives and health visitors, and they will be better protected as a result of the extension we propose.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I recently met the father of a little girl from Chingford whose ear was chewed off in a horrific attack in a public park. It was simply heartbreaking to hear how the unrestrained dog attacked, circled and attacked again—like a shark, he said. Victims of dog attacks, together with police officers, health workers, vets and postal workers, have specifically called for powerful new dog control notices that could, for example, force owners to muzzle and restrain aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Will the Secretary of State explain, not only to the House but to that father and all the victims of dog attacks, why the Government have rejected these new powers that have been demanded, which could tackle irresponsible owners and save young lives and limbs?

Caroline Spelman: Everybody in this House will want to express their sympathy for families whose children have either been maimed or lost their lives. It is tragic that four of the five most recent fatalities have been children under the age of five. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s desire not to see that happen again.
	With regard to the control of dogs in public places, the Dangerous Dogs Act gives the police powers to do that, including the ability to require the muzzling of dogs. These can be used as conditions for a dog owner retaining ownership of the dog. As I have said, local authorities can also use dog control orders.

Rivers and Waterways

Chris Skidmore: What steps she is taking to secure the long-term future of rivers and waterways.

Richard Benyon: We are making excellent progress with our plan to transfer British Waterways’ navigations in England and Wales to the Canal and River Trust: funding has been agreed, the charity has been registered, the board of trustees is in place, the charity’s council has had its first meeting, and recruitment of members of the waterways partnerships is well under way. Subject to parliamentary approval, we plan to transfer the waterways in July, ensuring the network’s long-term future. Much is also being done to improve the quality of our rivers and their surrounding catchments.

Chris Skidmore: The River Avon runs through the bottom of my constituency. Alongside it runs the River Avon trail, a great example of how scenic waterways can be opened up for local people and visitors alike. Will the Minister accept an invitation to come to see at first hand the great work that has been done by those involved in this success?

Richard Benyon: I would certainly like to visit the trail, because I think that it is a wonderful example of how local people and riparian owners, working together, can really improve the quality of people’s lives and of the river. We recently launched our Love Your Rivers campaign, which I extol to Members on both sides of the House, because it is an opportunity to connect local people with their waterways and ensure that they understand that the water we rely on comes from the natural environment and how we can all be responsible for looking after it.

Alun Michael: Having chaired the all-party group on waterways for the past couple of years, I welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage with those who care for the waterways and with parliamentarians on these issues and the steps he has just described. Will he ensure that in future Ministers and officials fully respect the independence of the new Canal and River Trust and its trustees, as that is an essential part of the new structures he is putting in place?

Richard Benyon: May I put on the record my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman—I thank other Members too, but him particularly—for his work in supporting what we have been trying to do? He is a long-standing
	supporter of the waterways. I absolutely assure him that the governance model we have introduced will create an independent organisation that cannot be tampered with by Ministers in future, and certainly not by this Minister, who passionately wants the charity to succeed.

Tessa Munt: Currently boats are allowed to discharge effluent into rivers and watercourses. I recognise the difficulties with some locations, which are very remote from any practical answer to the problem, but what measures is the Minister taking to call a complete halt to this practice so that the quality of beach bathing water, particularly in the west country, is kept to the very highest standards?

Richard Benyon: Water quality is an absolute fundamental, and releasing pollutants into waterways can affect our ability to comply with the directives that we have signed up to, such as the water framework directive, so it is an absolute priority as well. We have allocated funding to improve water quality. I will certainly look at any regulations, and if the new charity comes forward with suggestions that require legislation on any level, we will certainly consider that.

Agriculture Council

Jonathan Edwards: What meetings she has had with Ministers from the devolved Administrations to discuss the European Council meeting on Agriculture and Fisheries on 26 and 27 April 2012.

Caroline Spelman: May I take this opportunity to explain to the House that I chose to be with hon. Members in the House today rather than to go the negotiations on the common agricultural policy? It is because the next set of oral questions to my Department may clash with the Rio+20 summit.
	Normally I would meet Ministers from devolved Administrations to discuss reform of the CAP and the common fisheries policy, which are the main agenda items at today’s Council. I look forward to continuing those discussions, and my next meeting with them will be on 2 May.
	It is normal practice for UK lead Ministers to meet Ministers from devolved Administrations before Council meetings, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have done so.

Jonathan Edwards: In a recent major interview with a European publication, the Welsh First Minister said of participation in European meetings:
	“It is not enough to be in the room, we have to be at the table as well.”
	I certainly could not agree more with him. Under what circumstances would English Agriculture Ministers in the British Government give up the table to Welsh Ministers in European Council meetings, or would Wales get to the table only as an independent state in the European Union?

Caroline Spelman: This matter was discussed in a memorandum of understanding when the coalition Government came into office. I regularly invite devolved
	Ministers to attend Council meetings, and we have on one occasion invited a devolved Minister to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom, but I should like to make two points: the UK is the member state; and as with all devolved nations’ Administrations, when we throw the full weight of the United Kingdom behind the needs of a nation such as Wales, we are more likely to secure what the hon. Gentleman’s nation would like.

Robert Smith: Given the global food shortage and rising food prices, in the Council negotiations with other Ministers is the Secretary of State focusing all her attention on how we ensure that we maximise food production by our farmers in order to tackle this crisis?

Caroline Spelman: I certainly am. The European Commission identifies food security and climate change as the twin challenges of CAP reform, but I am on the record as having said that what is proposed is not ambitious enough in that regard. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom is pushing very hard to ensure that the reformed CAP results in more productive and sustainable agriculture, whereby we produce more food both at home and for those in need of it abroad.

Drought

Bill Esterson: What recent assessment she has made of the extent of drought.

Henry Smith: What recent discussions she has had on the extent of drought; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Spelman: Drought is a natural phenomenon, so with the Environment Agency and water companies we have been drawing up a contingency plan. Since May 2011 we have held three drought summits and established the national drought group to co-ordinate action to manage the impact of the drought. Water companies are taking action to conserve the public water supply, and that is why we put resilience at the heart of the water White Paper.

Bill Esterson: I think the public must question the competence of the Government when it comes to drought orders, given that we are having one of the wettest springs on record, but does the Secretary of State know anybody, or of anybody, who is using their hosepipe in spite of the hosepipe ban?

Caroline Spelman: I could be deluded into thinking that I had the power to make it rain on the basis of this week, but I know that no Government can make it rain. The Government saw the drought coming, warned farmers of the need to make preparations, and said that if we had a second dry winter we would be in a drought situation. The water companies have made the correct decision to introduce temporary restrictions for non-essential uses of domestic water supply in the parts of the country that are water-stressed.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what plans the Government have to create
	water interconnectivity between the regions of the United Kingdom, so that we have more of a national grid of water supply?

Caroline Spelman: The Government made it clear in the water White Paper that we published last autumn that we want to see increased connectivity. Water companies are already joining up their sources of supply to help them to move water from areas of plenty to those of greatest need. For example, interconnection exists between United Utilities and the west-east link, and as my hon. Friend will have seen in the press, there is a bulk trading proposal between Severn Trent Water and Anglian Water. Local connectivity is the key, and Ofwat will bring forward proposals for the next price review that will encourage that.

Mary Creagh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on a shining and rare example of a successful Government policy. Since the drought was declared, it has been pouring with rain and she is in danger of doing a Denis Howell. Does she believe that people with boreholes should comply with any hosepipe ban in their area?

Caroline Spelman: In her kind remark at the beginning, the hon. Lady recalled the plight of one of my west midlands predecessors, Denis Howell, who will be forever remembered as the Minister for Rain who tried to make it rain in 1976. He is fondly remembered.
	I encourage people who have borehole capacity on their property to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and abide by the restrictions that apply to those who do not have a private supply of water. That is good practice.

Mary Creagh: There is some debate about the Under-Secretary of State’s hosepipe and whether it was left on. We know that the hosepipe ban has prompted—

Daniel Kawczynski: Misleading the House!

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) should not accuse another Member of misleading the House. That is improper. I say to him in all charity and kindness that, notwithstanding his great abilities and track record, in his capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister his role is to fetch and carry notes, and to nod as required; it is not to shout and heckle from a sedentary position. He will remain silent.

Mary Creagh: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. Before we go any further, the hon. Gentleman should immediately withdraw the suggestion or allegation that anyone has misled the House.

Daniel Kawczynski: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mary Creagh: That is the first time that I have been accused of misleading the House when I have described something as a matter of debate.
	The hosepipe ban has prompted a borehole boom. Taking from the groundwater supply affects everyone, because that is the water that fills the reservoirs, rivers and aquifers used by the public mains water supply. The Secretary of State’s water White Paper that was published in December—her definition of “autumn” is slightly unusual—astonished the water industry, because it proposed delaying the reform of water abstraction until 2027. What plans does she have in the meantime to tackle unsustainable water use by the few to preserve drinking water supplies for the many?

Caroline Spelman: The reform of the abstraction regime has, in effect, commenced. At the drought summit in May last year, the stakeholders in the industry agreed that we needed to take a more flexible approach to the present 30,000 abstractions a year to ensure that the water gets to everybody who needs it. The Environment Agency was praised publicly by the stakeholders at the third drought summit for the flexibility and transparency that have been achieved in the existing abstraction system. That does not mean that there is no scope for further improvement. As I said in the water White Paper, because of the challenge of climate change, we need to reform abstraction.

George Freeman: At the time of the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in March, there was not a cloud in the sky and the sun was shining, and the Secretary of State set out some important measures on drought. I congratulate her on the wettest month in recent years. Notwithstanding that, groundwater and aquifer levels are still low, posing some threat to farmers and habitats in Norfolk. Will she take this opportunity to encourage families around the country to use water judiciously in the home and house to prevent the risk of drought this summer?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend makes some very helpful points. Although we have had really heavy rainfall this month, that will not be enough to make up for two very dry winters in a row, so it continues to be important that everyone takes responsibility for saving water. The current conditions allow water companies and farmers to top up the reservoirs, which is a good thing, but it is important that we continue to make all the efforts we can to conserve water.

Rural Communities

Nadhim Zahawi: What steps she is taking to ensure that rural communities and businesses are fully engaged with the work of her Department.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA’s new England-wide rural and farming network provides a means of two-way engagement between DEFRA Ministers and 17 rural and farming network groups representing rural communities and businesses. DEFRA Ministers are proactively seeking meetings with those groups to ensure that they are engaged with the work of the Department. DEFRA continues to invest in the rural community action network and holds regular discussions with Lord Teverson’s Rural Coalition.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the Minister. Will he join me in congratulating all those involved in the successful bid from Coventry and Warwickshire for a rural growth network, and state how the Department will work with that network to improve engagement with the business community?

Richard Benyon: The cross-party board that examined the 29 applications from local economic partnerships and from some local authorities was really impressed by the rural growth network in my hon. Friend’s constituency. A credible, experienced set of partners brought it together, and it is a good network. Those partners are accustomed to delivery and believe that they will lever in £50 million of investment. That will mean jobs and technology-led industries, and I look forward to seeing how successful it will be in the coming years.

Topical Questions

Henry Smith: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that regard, it relies heavily on the scientific expertise of its key staff and, accordingly, I should like to record formally the appointment of Professor Ian Boyd as my Department’s new chief scientific adviser. Professor Boyd will take over from Professor Sir Bob Watson, whose experience and expertise have been tremendous in the service of successive Governments.

Henry Smith: Earlier this year, about 650 elephants were slaughtered in Cameroon for their ivory. Sadly, that is just one example of that vile, illegal trade. What work is my right hon. Friend doing in the international community to ensure that it is stopped once and for all?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, it is a despicable trade, and my hon. Friend, who has Gatwick airport in his constituency, will know how hard we work on our borders to deter it. We are working through the convention on international trade in endangered species to ensure that no further sales of ivory take place without firm evidence that such sales will reduce poaching. In the past year we have contributed £134,000 to Interpol and CITES precisely to combat the illegal ivory trade.

Lyn Brown: There are reports that the Mayor of London sprays suppressants on roads immediately around key air pollution monitoring sites to reduce pollution readings. Given that there are an estimated 4,000 deaths in the capital a year owing to the air quality, would that not be an outrageous and rather callous scam? Does the Minister support the policy of pretending an issue does not exist rather than using scarce resources to deal with it?

Richard Benyon: Suppressants are used as part of a wide strategy for dealing with pollution, and if the hon. Lady believes they are only used around monitoring stations, she is entirely wrong.
	They are used at pollution hot spots as a temporary measure, and as part of a wider strategy. The Mayor should be applauded for the measures that he is bringing in.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Broadband for the Rural North is a community group in my constituency dedicated to bringing superfast broadband to a neglected part of our rural uplands. It is a real example of the big society in action, with hundreds of people coming together, putting their own money in, digging their own trenches and laying their own cables. What further help could DEFRA give, and will a Minister come to see what the group is doing to see how we can support it in fulfilling its potential?

Richard Benyon: I have heard of that noble initiative and many others, and can confirm that DEFRA has allocated £20 million as part of its rural broadband fund precisely to support such communities. I am keen to ensure that local initiatives fit in with Broadband Delivery UK and DEFRA’s role to ensure that we get superfast broadband to the hardest-to-reach communities. I praise my hon. Friend’s community for what it has done thus far.

Stephen Timms: PepsiCo, BT, the Co-op, Centrica and United Utilities all support mandatory carbon reporting to improve business environmental performance. The Secretary of State’s party supported it in opposition, but the statutory deadline for a decision has now been missed. They wanted to be the greenest Government ever, but when are they going to deliver on that?

Caroline Spelman: The support of the companies the right hon. Gentleman identifies is welcome in that regard. I issued a statement to the House about the delay. The difficulty is that those companies report their carbon on a different basis. We therefore need to take the time to find a common basis on which to measure how companies report carbon so that investors can compare like with like.

Sarah Newton: Great Cornish food and drink producers contribute £1.5 billion every year to the local economy. What can DEFRA Ministers do to help them export their delicious products overseas?

Caroline Spelman: Nobody disputes that the produce my hon. Friend describes is wonderful, but the challenge for small and medium-sized enterprises is how to overcome the hurdles of exporting to emerging markets such as China and India, which are sometimes quite complex. I am delighted to announce to the House that the Minister of State will visit Cornwall tomorrow precisely to discuss that, and in the following month, he will go to China precisely to advocate the kind of good-quality Cornish products my hon. Friend describes.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Brighton and Hove city council on its resolution to become a One Planet council, which means, for example, that it will be run using sustainable procurement policies,
	and renewable energy and biodiversity practices? Will she commit to adopting One Planet principles as a step towards keeping sustainability in all policy making?

Caroline Spelman: I am happy to extend a hearty congratulation to the hon. Lady’s council, and I understand that the Isle of Wight is about to declare itself an eco-council, which shows the important role that local authorities can play. She will also know that the UK is playing a leading part in the preparations for the Rio+20 summit—the 20-year anniversary of the original Earth summit—where we will strongly advocate the need to put growth on to a more sustainable footing. We have also given strong support to the Colombian proposal for sustainable development goals.

Angie Bray: I welcome the measures the Secretary of State has announced on controlling dangerous dogs, such as they are—we also need tougher penalties to tackle dangerous owners—but does she agree that we should do more to encourage local authorities to use tenancy agreements, to help manage dogs better in council-owned properties?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I commend Ealing council for its “Dog Watch” initiative. There are many examples of local authorities taking innovative approaches to tackling that complex problem, including, for example, Wandsworth, which has restrictions on dog ownership in its tenanted properties. We believe in localism and that local authorities should be free to decide how to innovate, and those are both good examples of how to do so.

Julie Hilling: On Tuesday, we mark the 80th anniversary of the mass trespass at Kinder Scout. In Bolton West, we also remember the anniversary of the mass trespass at Winter hill in 1896, when 10,000 Boltonians trespassed on the moors above Bolton. However, all hon. Members know that the campaign for public access is not over. Will the Secretary of State inform the House when the process of designating the next stretches of England’s coastal paths will begin?

Richard Benyon: I visited one of the next phases of the coastal path earlier this week in Somerset, and saw some of the complications of integrating land management with access. We inherited quite a complicated system that we are trying to make simpler, and the first section of the path that I opened at Weymouth has a “lessons learned” report, which we are working on. The next five sections will be announced shortly.

Sheryll Murray: Will my hon. Friend explore every opportunity possible to negotiate with our European partners to secure exclusivity for UK vessels within our 12-mile limit in the forthcoming negotiations on the common fisheries policy?

Richard Benyon: I am going to Luxembourg this afternoon to take part in the Fisheries Council tomorrow. My hon. Friend is the voice in my head on such matters—[ Laughter. ] You know what I mean. If I can obtain 12-mile exclusivity, it will be a great achievement.

Alun Michael: In the last year of the Labour Government, 42 community-owned shops opened, thanks mainly to support from DEFRA and the Plunkett Foundation. How many community-owned shops have opened in each year since the general election?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House says that he has one opening next month, and one opened in my constituency in recent weeks. Beyond that, I am afraid that I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure, but there is fervent support for the kind of initiatives that see community shops opening. We want to do our best, through big society support and other policies, to ensure that more happen.

Andrew George: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), the Minister knows that the so-called historic entitlement of foreign vessels within the 12-mile zone is widely abused. In the forthcoming negotiations, will he ensure that the legal basis on which that historic entitlement is claimed is properly reviewed and the integrity of the 12-mile zone restored?

Richard Benyon: I want my hon. Friend and the House to understand that we are considering very seriously the suggestions that I have received in recent weeks, not least from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, about legal methods through which one could secure greater control. The most important thing is to get more regionalised and locally based management of our fisheries, and that is what I will discuss tomorrow in Luxembourg and will continue to discuss through the negotiations. I assure my hon. Friend that illegal activity in our 12-mile waters is something that I take very seriously and I want to ensure that enforcement is effective at every stage.

Mr Speaker: Mr Robert Flello, not here.

Ann McKechin: Farmers across the United Kingdom are looking to the Government to live up to their pledge to legislate for a grocery adjudicator. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she has managed to persuade her colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Prime Minister to include this in this year’s Queen’s Speech?

Caroline Spelman: Obviously, I cannot tell the hon. Lady what is in the Queen’s Speech, but I invite her to look at the body language of the Deputy Leader of the House as a clear steer that she will not be disappointed.

Roger Williams: The farming community are very worried about the outbreak of the Schmallenberg virus. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether pan-European work will be done to produce a vaccine against this terrible disease?

Caroline Spelman: We are working on a co-operative basis with the other member states that have been affected. One of the lessons from the successful tackling of blue tongue for the farming industry and the vaccination industry is the viability of such a vaccine. It would take several years to produce such a vaccine as it is a new
	virus and still requires a lot of science to make sure that we make the right decision. I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that, with the quality of our scientific base added to that of other member states, no stone will be left unturned.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission ,  was asked—

Neighbourhood Planning Referendums

Sajid Javid: What recent assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the rules relating to neighbourhood planning referendums.

Gary Streeter: The commission is reviewing the draft regulations for the conduct of neighbourhood planning referendums and will respond to the Department for Communities and Local Government shortly. As required by the Localism Act 2011, the Department also consulted the commission on proposed questions to be put to voters at these referendums. The commission published its assessment of the proposed questions on 11 April and has recommended some changes to the wording to make it easier for voters to understand. It also suggested the need for supplementary information to be made available to voters to enable them to participate in an informed way.

Sajid Javid: The people of Bromsgrove are pleased that the Localism Act has given them unprecedented powers to shape their local community, but the wording in the referendums is crucial. Has the commission considered the best way to word such questions and will it be issuing formal guidance?

Gary Streeter: I am delighted to be able to give my hon. Friend a positive response. He makes the important point that in any referendum it is important that the question is right, clear and fair. The commission is conducting detailed research with experts, the public, political parties and campaign groups to ensure that the wording in the upcoming referendums under the Localism Act is unbiased and intelligible.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury , representing  the Church Commissioners, was asked—

VAT (Listed Buildings)

Simon Hughes: What representations the Church Commissioners have made to Her Majesty’s Treasury on the proposed extension of VAT to approved alterations to listed buildings.

Tony Baldry: The Bishop of London and I met my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. It was a helpful and constructive meeting. We made it clear why we believed it to be in the best interests of the community to continue to exempt alterations to listed places of worship from VAT. We gave the Chancellor a full written submission, a copy of which I have arranged to be placed in the Library. The Chancellor undertook to consider our submission carefully and made clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that listed places of worship are not adversely affected by the Budget proposal. I anticipate a further meeting with the Chancellor and the Exchequer Secretary in due course.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his actions, intervention and report. I have the privilege to be the Member of Parliament for two historic cathedrals—Southwark and St George’s—as well as many churches. Other colleagues share my concerns. Will he ensure that he continues to update us on this matter? I will continue willingly to apply pressure on this point, because it is important that the Government understand that simply extending the scheme’s remit to give money, when the budget has been cut, does not solve the problem, unless the rules are changed.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One reason we are keen that the Chancellor maintains the VAT exemption for church alterations is the certainty it brings. However much money is put into the listed places of worship scheme, it has its own inherent volatility and uncertainty, and no one is sure until after the event how much the refund will be. In the last quarter, for example, only just over half of the money for the listed places of worship scheme was refunded.

Mark Lazarowicz: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s remit applies to the Church of England, but he will be aware that churches throughout the UK, including many in my constituency, will be affected by the VAT changes. Does he agree that if any arrangements are made to assist the churches to meet their extra costs, they should apply to churches throughout the UK? Will he make that point in his discussions with the Chancellor?

Tony Baldry: Of course. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the listed places of worship scheme extends to every church, synagogue and meeting house—to every listed place of worship. We are trying to make such buildings as adaptable as possible for wider community use. This is often about humble but important things, such as putting in kitchens and toilets to make such buildings as available as possible to the whole community.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for the representations he has made to Ministers. Will he take note of the objections raised by many members of the Church of England in my constituency, including members of St Peter’s church in Congleton and St Mary’s church in Sandbach? Will he consider two points? First, the Treasury has said that there will be an exemption from the new rules for contracts that have already been signed, but many
	churches have already undertaken ongoing works. Could there be some flexibility in that respect? Secondly, if the grant scheme is to be reviewed, could it be so over a period of several years, not just one or two years, so that there can be certainty? Works often take many years.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important to get the transitional relief right. We made it clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he was not minded to follow us on continuing the exemption, but wanted to increase the grant under the listed places of worship scheme, we would want to see certainty over the sum, not just for this year but for a whole number of years to come.

Stephen Timms: Quite a number of projects will not go ahead if the proposal stands. The reassurance that the hon. Gentleman has received from the Chancellor is encouraging, but does he accept that that reassurance can be delivered only if the proposal is abandoned altogether?

Tony Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman is a former Treasury Minister, and I am sure that he will have understood from the substantive answer that I gave at the outset that the Chancellor and his officials are considering carefully the submissions and representations that we put to them. They obviously want to consider the legal implications of a VAT exemption just for alterations to listed places of worship. Discussions with officials are ongoing, and the dialogue is constructive and positive.

Sarah Newton: Of the 312 churches across the diocese of Truro, 56 are carrying out repairs and alterations this year. The proposed VAT changes would add £405,000 to the bill. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that churches such as St John’s in Truro that are making alterations to enable greater use of their facilities by community groups such as the Truro Homeless Action Group might be deterred by the prospect of having to find an extra £5,000 just for the VAT?

Tony Baldry: I have visited St John’s; it does excellent work. This is a good example of the kind of alterations involving such humble things as toilets and kitchens that are being carried out to serve the wider community. As every colleague in the House will know, £5,000 is a lot of money to have to raise through jumble sales and coffee mornings, and such funds are all being raised by local people working voluntarily. We should not underestimate the impact of the change on our communities, should it go ahead.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this matter so far. When the Prime Minister was asked about it at Prime Minister’s questions, he made a rather obscure reference to adding swimming pools to stately homes, but the fact is that nearly half of all grade 1 listed buildings in England and Wales are Church of England churches. Alterations are made to them to facilitate wider community use, and St John’s in Godley, Hyde,
	has so far raised £47,000 to carry out the work that it wants to do. Should not the Government think again on this?

Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister said, not so long ago, that the big society was
	“the biggest possible opportunity for churches up and down the country to have a real social mission”.
	I have no doubt that he appreciates the potential for churches and church buildings to be open not just for a few hours on a Sunday but throughout the whole week, to provide a basis for real social activity.

James Gray: Historic churches across North Wiltshire, such as those at Castle Combe and Hullavington, will be relieved to hear what my hon. Friend has said, in a tentative way, about the possible increase in VAT to 20% on alterations. Does he agree, however, that replacing VAT exemption with a discretionary grant would not do, because it would not go to all churches? It would go only to those churches chosen by commissioners or other individuals, and lots of churches that currently have the exemption would therefore no longer have it.

Tony Baldry: I hope I have made it clear to the House that we share those concerns. That is why we are pushing for full exemption. The listed places of worship scheme is welcome, but it is very volatile and uncertain at the moment because people are never quite clear how much they will receive back under the scheme.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit to listed places of worship from the planned changes to gift aid next year will be more than outweighed by the proposal to charge them VAT on alterations? I do not know of any listed places of worship that are planning to install a swimming pool, but I know that many churches and cathedrals are planning to carry out alterations. Does he therefore agree that it would be best to leave things as they are and to allow the exemption to continue?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but, in fairness, so does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is why he made clear, at the meeting that the Bishop of London and I had with him on Monday, the Government’s commitment to ensuring that listed places of worship would not be adversely affected by the Budget proposal, and I am sure that he will do everything he can to deliver on that commitment.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Police and Crime Commissioners

Robert Halfon: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of arrangements for the elections for police and crime commissioners in November 2012.

Gary Streeter: On 15 March, the Electoral Commission submitted its response to the Home Office consultation on the draft statutory instruments for police and crime commissioner elections. A copy of the response has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The commission’s main concern is the Government’s proposal to create a website to host information from candidates. It believes that this is not the most effective way of ensuring that all voters, especially those who do not have regular internet access, know about the candidates standing in their areas. The commission also made a number of other recommendations to ensure that the elections are well run.

Robert Halfon: Harlow residents are hugely excited about these elections, not least because Essex Conservatives are encouraging any resident to apply to be our candidate if they are up to the job. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Electoral Commission will help candidates with leaflets and in other ways, rather than be a bureaucratic hindrance?

Gary Streeter: As we have learned to know in this House, where Harlow leads, others will follow. My hon. Friend endorses the main point made to the Government by the Electoral Commission—that a website alone will not be enough for individual candidates, many of whom were not well known previously, to get the message across. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the Electoral Commission’s proposal that leaflets to every household are also important.

Diana Johnson: Is there anything that the Electoral Commission can do to provide that information if it is not possible to get the Government to change their mind about the leaflets and a free post to every household?

Gary Streeter: It is certainly not the job of the Electoral Commission to fund a free mail-out on behalf of candidates, but what it will do as part of its £3.6 million awareness campaign is to ensure that a booklet goes to every household in the 41 areas where these referendums are taking place to inform people about the elections, and it will include a reference to the Government website.

House of Lords Reform (Referendum)

Jeremy Lefroy: Whether the Electoral Commission has had any discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister on a referendum on the Government's proposed reform of the House of Lords.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has had no such discussions. If there should be a referendum on House of Lords reform, the commission’s priorities are that any referendum should be well run in every part of the UK, and that the questions put to the voters should be intelligible and unbiased.

Jeremy Lefroy: Given the effective and efficient way in which the Electoral Commission oversaw the referendum on the alternative vote system last year, does he agree that the commission is indeed well equipped to handle a referendum on the House of Lords or, indeed, any other matter of momentous constitutional change?

Gary Streeter: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is, of course, a matter for this Parliament whether or not there will be a referendum on House of Lords reform. When it comes to it, the Electoral Commission will do all it can to ensure that the success of the alternative vote referendum last year is replicated. I am not necessarily talking about the outcome of the referendum—although I am really—but about it being well run and about the question put to voters being clear and unbiased.

Peter Bottomley: In possible discussions between the Electoral Commission and the Deputy Prime Minister, will the point come up that any election to the House of Lords will rebalance the powers between this House and that House—a constitutional matter that I submit should become automatically liable to a referendum for popular approval?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I am afraid that it is not a matter for the Electoral Commission.

Voter Registration

John Glen: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effectiveness of its recent campaign to increase voter registration.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission’s recent campaign was targeted at audiences, including home movers, individuals from black and minority ethnic communities, students and service voters. The full evaluation of this year’s campaign will be made available in the summer, but initial indications are that during this campaign, there were more than 500,000 visits to the commission’s “About My Vote” website and more than 100,000 registration forms were ordered or downloaded.

John Glen: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I think the adverts were excellent. What role, however, does the Electoral Commission have in ensuring that electoral registration officers play their part in making sure that people who cannot easily be reached are able to register?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although we have all seen the Electoral Commission’s TV adverts encouraging people to register to vote, it is the day-to-day task of electoral registration officers in each locality to maximise voter registration. Performance can be patchy, and the Electoral Commission is working with the poorest performing EROs to try to support them in doing a better job.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 30 April—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords], followed by if necessary consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Tuesday 1 May—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his comprehensive statement. I also thank the staff of the House for all the hard work that they have done for Members during the current Session.
	In the week of Shakespeare’s birth, we should pay tribute to our greatest dramatist, who has had such an enormous impact on our culture and our language. Looking at the Government, however, I have to say that even Shakespeare could not write a farce like this. Where does one start?
	The Culture Secretary came to the House yesterday to try to explain himself. He failed. He said on Tuesday evening that now was not the time for knee-jerk reactions. On Wednesday morning, he kicked out his special adviser. The Culture Secretary may have thrown his aide to the wall, but the ministerial code is crystal clear: the Secretary of State is responsible for the conduct of his special advisers. Will the Leader of the House now answer the following questions, which the Culture Secretary conspicuously failed to answer yesterday?
	Was News Corporation informed about the content of a parliamentary statement before that statement was made to the House? Although the Culture Secretary told the House on 3 March that he had published all the exchanges between his Department and News Corporation, the e-mails that were disclosed at the Leveson inquiry demonstrate that he had not done so. That is not a matter for Lord Leveson; it is a matter for the House, and the House needs answers. Far from acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Culture Secretary has been acting like a dodgy football ref who not only favours one team, but is in the dressing room with them planning the tactics. Apparently he is at the Tower of London today, awaiting his fate.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has asked the independent adviser on the ministerial code to investigate the Culture Secretary’s actions, and if not, why not? Will he also tell us whether the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to come to the House to correct the record that he placed in the Library on his meetings with Rupert Murdoch? The Prime Minister recalled just two, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said yesterday, Mr Murdoch revealed to the Leveson inquiry that he had met the Prime Minister more often than that. The Prime Minister apparently “forgets” the majority of his meetings with Rupert Murdoch.
	The Prime Minister also said that he had not been involved in “any of the discussions” about News International’s bid for BSkyB, but it now emerges that he did discuss it with James Murdoch—over a cosy Christmas dinner with Rebekah Brooks while the phone-hacking scandal was in full swing. And then there is Raisa the police horse. The Prime Minister could not remember whether he had taken her riding, before finally remembering that he had. We know that this Prime Minister doesn’t do detail, but his lapses of memory are beginning to look a little bit too convenient.
	The Public Administration Committee has been examining the leadership that the Prime Minister has given the Government. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read its report? According to the Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished Conservative Back Bencher, there is a “strategic vacuum” at the centre of this Government. The report concludes that the Government’s aims were
	“too meaningless to serve any useful purpose”.
	Another Conservative Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), has put it even more bluntly. Now that Government Members recognise what Opposition Members have been saying for some time—that this is an incompetent, out-of-touch Government —will the Leader of the House be making time for a debate on the Committee’s report before Prorogation?
	The current long parliamentary Session is finally crawling to a close. It began with extravagant boasts by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In June 2010, presenting his first Budget, the Chancellor told the House that by today the economy would have grown by 4.3%. He also told the House that unemployment would peak in 2010 and fall in each subsequent year, and that public sector borrowing would fall each year. Will the Chancellor now be correcting the record?
	The economy is back in recession. The Chancellor has presided over the worst performance in our economy for a century. Unemployment is higher than it was when the Government came to power, and they are borrowing £150 billion more than they had planned to borrow. This is a double-dip recession made in Downing street. The Chancellor has bungled his latest Budget just as he has bungled his economic strategy, and hard-working families up and down the country are paying the price.
	“The economy is stagnant. The Government is misfiring. The Budget was a shambles. Tory MPs are unhappy. Downing Street is incompetent.”
	That is not my assessment; it is the assessment of The  Daily Telegraph .

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt and for the sake of good parliamentary order, I assume the hon. Lady’s question relating to the details of the conduct of the Culture Secretary and Prime Minister are couched in terms of a request for a statement or debate next week?

Angela Eagle: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Indeed. [Interruption.] I am seeking to clarify the position, and that should be welcomed by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

George Young: Let me respond to what the shadow Leader of the House has said. The business statement was, indeed, brief, but you, Mr Speaker, are always asking Ministers to make brief statements, so I hope that found favour in at least one quarter.
	I endorse what the hon. Lady said about the House staff. On Shakespeare, I think “All’s Well That Ends Well” is a good work to remind the House about. On special advisers, the hon. Lady rehearsed a number of issues that were raised yesterday. I cannot remember which Minister resigned when Damian McBride had to leave No. 10 Downing street.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of course, reply to the letter the Deputy Leader has written to him, but may I remind the hon. Lady of what Lord Justice Leveson said on Tuesday? He said that
	“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed. When it is concluded, there will doubtless be opportunities for consideration to be given to any further investigation that is then considered necessary.”
	I think Lord Justice Leveson has given good advice.
	On the question of meetings with Rupert Murdoch, I understand that Rupert Murdoch has produced a new list this morning, which has not yet been published but which will be published in due course. The Government stand by the list we produced on a quarterly basis, which we were always clear included only formal meetings, rather than, for example, being at a summer party when it would obviously be impossible to know the full list of those attending.

Chris Bryant: Pathetic!

George Young: However, I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will want to reflect on what he did yesterday when he raised evidence in this House that had not yet been released by the inquiry, a clear breach of the restriction order placed on it by Lord Justice Leveson, and which Lord Justice Leveson deprecated in his opening remarks this morning. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on what he did, and possibly apologise to Lord Leveson.
	Finally, on the Public Administration Committee and all that, I shall tell the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) what the Government have been doing. We have been carrying forward important reforms that the country needs on welfare, immigration, planning, education, health, energy, legal aid, the financial sector, the costs of Government and transforming local democracy—all of them reforms that her party ducked when in government. We are having to do this in a less benign economic environment than the last Labour Government had, and we are having to do it at the same time as we pay off their record budget deficit. Against that background, we have boosted businesses, cut corporation tax, helped hard-pressed families and given pensioners the biggest increase in the state pension for over 60 years. The truth is that this two-party Government have done more for the country in two years than her party managed in 13.

Chris White: Last week, DCA Design International, a business based in my constituency, won the Queen’s award for enterprise in international trade. At a time when we need to
	rebalance our economy and increase exports, DCA is an excellent example of what can be achieved. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating DCA, and will he find Government time for a debate on how we can promote exports by small and medium-sized enterprises?

George Young: I commend what DCA has done. This is exactly the sort of rebalancing we want to see, and I applaud the work that has been done. I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I were to say I could find time for a debate on that subject in the relatively short period that I anticipate being available between now and Prorogation, but I hope that, perhaps in a debate on the Loyal Address when the House reconvenes, there may be an opportunity for him to make his case again and for the Government to set out the actions we have taken to promote SMEs, exports and the rebalancing of the economy, which is so desperately needed.

Alison McGovern: Will the Leader of the House consider granting an early debate on giving to the arts and culture? Now that we are in a double-dip recession, with the Chancellor targeting those who give and local authorities cut to the bone, galleries, museums and theatres are under threat. They need to understand what more the Government have in store for them.

George Young: The Government have taken a number of steps to encourage charitable giving. We have made changes to the inheritance tax regime and made it easier for charities to claim back tax on small donations. As the hon. Lady knows, discussions are under way to see whether we can minimise the impact of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget on charities that depend on large donations. However, it is right to expect those on high incomes to make some contribution, through income tax, towards the overheads of the country.

Robert Smith: The Leader of the House will know how important business in the north-east of Scotland is to the Scottish and UK economies. May we have a debate on the roll-out of superfast broadband, to recognise the higher than average take-up of broadband in the north-east the first time round, to build on that demand and to recognise the importance of ensuring that those communities that were left behind last time are not left behind again?

George Young: As a Member with a rural constituency, I understand how important it is that people in such constituencies should be able to compete on equal terms with those who live in cities when it comes to accessing fast broadband. I welcome the roll-out in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I would welcome a debate early in the next Session, when we can outline the steps we have taken through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to encourage BT to roll out broadband and, where that is not an option, to encourage alternative suppliers.

Caroline Lucas: Southern Water, which serves my constituents, loses over 92 million litres of water a day. That is enough to supply more
	than 600,000 people, or 26% of its domestic users. Can we have an early debate on what action the Government will take to increase the leakage reduction targets for water companies, and to increase the percentage of profits that Ofwat can require them to invest in reducing leaks if they do not meet those targets?

George Young: The hon. Lady reminds the House, very aptly, that at a time when there is still a water shortage, it is vital to do all we can to reduce the amount of water lost through leakages. There has been one drought summit, and I believe another is planned next month. Part of the agenda is to take further action to reduce the amount of water lost through wastage. I will certainly draw the hon. Lady’s concern to the attention of my the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), to ensure that, in the case of Southern Water, every possible step is taken to minimise the loss of water through leakage and wastage.

Harriett Baldwin: Staff at the Worcestershire Health and Care Trust have been working very hard to reduce waiting times for young people awaiting a mental health assessment. Given that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that waiting times are an important measure of the performance of our national health service, may we have an early debate on the important topic of waiting times?

George Young: I welcome what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which shows that it is possible to make progress, notwithstanding the somewhat gloomy forecast that we have heard from Opposition Members. Waiting times generally have remained broadly constant since the general election, although there are many more people to treat, both as in-patients and out-patients. I applaud what has happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency to reduce the time that local children have to wait to receive a mental health assessment. For a child who is developing, a delay of months—or in some cases even years—can put back their education, so I applaud the initiative that is taking place in Worcestershire.

Derek Twigg: In 2009, the Labour Government reduced the qualifying period and increased the cash limit for support with mortgage interest payments. Unfortunately, the Budget was silent on what the Government are going to do about the scheme, which finishes at the end of the year. We know that it has already helped more than 250,000 people to stay in their homes, which is important. Given the concern about increasing mortgage rates, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate or statement, so that Ministers can say what they are going to do about this important scheme?

George Young: One of the things we have done is to enable mortgage interest rates to stay at a much lower level than they would be, had we pursued the economic policies recommended by Opposition Members. I am sure that all those who have a mortgage will welcome the fact that interest rates are at record low levels. I will
	make inquiries at the Department for Work and Pensions, if that is the appropriate Department, on the question of support for mortgage interest payments for those on benefits, and ask the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Stephenson: In February, I organised a jobs and apprenticeships fair in Colne, working closely with students from Nelson and Colne college, so I was pleased to see that in March unemployment fell in Pendle. Sadly, however, unemployment remains too high, despite the increase of 275,000 in employment across the country that we have seen since the general election. Can we therefore have a debate on some of the measures that the Government are taking, such as the youth contract and the back to work programme?

George Young: Again, I would welcome such a debate, perhaps at the beginning of the next Session and in the debate on the Loyal Address. The youth contract, launched this month, has provided an extra 250,000 work experience or sector-based work academy places. We also have the Work programme, which will help more than 3 million people in total, as well as work experience and apprenticeships. We have a portfolio of schemes designed to get young people back into work, and there are already signs of success, with about half of those who have gone through a work experience course having come off benefits. That seems to me to be a very encouraging initiative.

Chris Bryant: In 1628, the Government were in the midst of a “clustershambles” and they decided to prorogue Parliament immediately, so that there could be no further criticism of them. It would seem that the Leader of the House is, in effect, going to do that on behalf of Her Majesty on Tuesday. May I suggest that it would be much better to provide a whole week of Back-Bench business, so that all the matters that I am sure Government Members would like to debate, such as why the European Commission is demanding an increase of 7% in its budget, and all the issues that Opposition Members would like to discuss, such as the double-dip recession, can be put not only to Ministers, but to the Prime Minister, who will be avoiding Prime Minister’s questions for another two weeks?

George Young: The previous Prime Minister was absent at Prime Minister’s questions roughly twice as often as the current Prime Minister, who has spent more time answering his questions than almost any other Prime Minister. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, once Parliament has discharged the legislative programme, for the House to prorogue and then start a new Session. There will be an interval of perhaps three sitting days between the end of this Session and the beginning of the next one, which is roughly in line with what happened previously—[Interruption.] I just say to the hon. Gentleman, who is chattering incessantly from a sedentary position, that when he was Deputy Leader of the House he did not introduce a Backbench Business Committee. The freedom that he is now asking us to give to the House was one that he denied Parliament in the previous Parliament.

Julian Sturdy: In my constituency, tethered horses are frequently escaping on to the highways and causing serious accidents. Will the Leader of the House update me on the possibility of allocating time for an urgent debate on the responsibility that local authorities have to tackle the issue?

George Young: Obviously, this is an unacceptable risk to other road users, and of course we want to take any steps we can to promote road safety. I will raise this issue with the appropriate Minister and ask him or her to write to my hon. Friend, just to make sure that local authorities have all the powers necessary to prevent this unnecessary hazard in his constituency.

Kate Green: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to be updated on electricity market reform? A delay in getting final announcements is causing considerable uncertainty for developers of new plants, including the developers of the Carrington power station in my constituency.

George Young: This is an important matter. I cannot anticipate the Loyal Address, but there may be an opportunity when we have a debate on it for hon. Members to speak about how we are undertaking electricity market reform, which is a vital measure necessary to secure energy supplies in the medium term.

Julian Lewis: The specialised Ministry of Defence police protect our bases and other sensitive installations against disruption and even terrorist attack. Given that, as part of the defence economies, they are facing the loss of several hundred officers over the next three years, may we have a statement from a Defence Minister confirming that the alternative proposals put forward by the highly experienced Defence Police Federation, which would result in fewer losses and less degradation of the level of security provided and also in savings equivalent to those proposed, will be properly evaluated by the security department of the MOD?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Like him, I have received correspondence from the Defence Police Federation. Those counter-proposals are now being considered by the chief constable of the MOD police. A helpful meeting has taken place between the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and the chair of the DPF. We are now taking this forward with a view to ensuring that the best possible use will be made of MOD police at those defence sites where there is a clear requirement for constabulary powers as part of the overall protective security arrangements.

Mike Gapes: Overnight, we have heard yet more reports of acts of violence against civilians undertaken by the Syrian regime. This fictional ceasefire is clearly not working. Will the Leader of the House have an urgent conversation with the Foreign Secretary? Can we get a statement on Syria before the House prorogues?

George Young: I would be misleading the hon. Gentleman if I said that we could get a statement on this very important matter before the House prorogues.
	He will know that the Foreign Secretary has made it absolutely clear that the current regime in Syria should stand aside, that political prisoners should be released, that there should be a cessation of hostilities and that relief aid should be allowed into those cities in Syria that desperately need assistance. Together with our allies in the United Nations, my right hon. Friend is now reflecting on what further measures can be taken to stop the slaughter taking place in Syria.

Martin Vickers: There is widespread concern in my constituency following the debate about VAT on static caravans, which has again highlighted the fragile state of some of the local economies in our seaside towns. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on such a matter?

George Young: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that the answer, exceptionally, is yes. Today’s Adjournment debate, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), is on static caravans, so if my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is around later, he will have an opportunity to share with the House his concerns on this matter.

Denis MacShane: In ancient times, the most dishonourable act was for a senior officer or official to sacrifice a junior person to save his own life. Can we add a day’s sitting next week to have a debate on this, because the media can discuss it and Leveson is discussing it, but Parliament is not. We began this Session with the cancer of Coulson and we are finishing it with the stench of sleaze at the heart of government. The Culture Secretary is living on borrowed time, as we know. We must debate this and clean up this matter.

George Young: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we did have a long statement and exchange of questions and answers on this matter yesterday. I just ask him this question: which Minister resigned when Mr Damian McBride had to go because of his activities at No. 10?

Andrew Selous: May we have an early debate on the injustice faced by a number of my constituents, and indeed by people up and down the country, who have had land stolen from them by people who have failed to register the change of ownership with the Land Registry? The law does not allow someone to sue persons unknown, so my constituents and others have no ability to seek justice. Will the Leader of the House please raise this matter with the appropriate Minister?

George Young: This is potentially quite a complicated legal matter, and I will raise it with my ministerial colleagues at BIS and the Ministry of Justice. If it is simply a matter of trespass, the freehold can be recovered by court action—the MOJ may be able to give more detail. I have a lot of sympathy with the farmer who is confronted with this problem and I will raise it with the appropriate colleagues.

Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on this country following the examples of Canada, the Netherlands and now Australia, and taking an independent decision on withdrawing its troops from
	Afghanistan? The extraordinary result of the Bradford West by-election shows that there is a great dislocation between opinion in this country and opinion in this House. Should we not debate the fact that our soldiers should not be in Afghanistan for a day longer than is necessary?

George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the green screen of the annunciator, he will see that there is shortly to be a statement on troop levels in Afghanistan. I very much hope that he will be able to stay in the Chamber for a little longer, as he will get an authoritative reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mark Spencer: The Leader of the House will be aware that it is illegal to grow cannabis but perfectly legal to purchase the equipment for growing it. May we have an early debate on this to assist in the law being changed, so that Nottinghamshire police can continue to stamp down on this dreadful crime?

George Young: That is a helpful suggestion from my hon. Friend, which I would like to share with the Home Secretary, who shares his concern that the consumption and growing of cannabis should be discouraged. As my hon. Friend says, it is indeed illegal and I will see whether it would make sense to change the law in the way that he has just proposed.

John McDonnell: I raised this matter on a point of order, Mr Speaker, and you suggested that it would be best raised as a business question. Will the Leader of the House look again at programme motions and, in particular, at the programme motion for the Financial Services Bill? Programme motions, quite rightly, enable the Government to get their business through, but to balance that they should ensure adequate scrutiny of proposed legislation. The whole thrust of the Financial Services Bill is corporate responsibility and the one clause that we did not reach dealt with that. The Bill will be considered for a second day, but would it be possible to extend the period allocated to ensure that we deal with the matter of corporate responsibility? Otherwise, this House looks irrelevant.

George Young: I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman raised that point. In my view, the time that the Government allocated on Report for the Financial Services Bill was adequate. Speaking from memory, we allocated two days, which is quite generous compared with the time that is normally allowed. When what I would regard as adequate time has been allowed, it is up to the House to make intelligent use of that time. If people speak at length during the earlier debates, it is inevitable that a price must be paid in the later stages. As a business manager, I genuinely believe that the overall amount of time that we allocated was adequate so long as the House behaved in an intelligent and disciplined way that enabled all the relevant bits of the Bill to be covered.

Julian Smith: Colin Brannigan of Ripon is having his sleep badly disturbed by unsolicited marketing fax calls to his home phone.
	He has tried Ofcom and the Information Commissioner. May we have a debate on banning unsolicited marketing fax calls in the middle of the night?

George Young: My understanding is that if one registers with the telephone preference service it is then an offence to telephone that number after a gap of 28 days. I will need to check whether that applies to faxes as well as phone calls, but there is protection from unsolicited phone calls when someone is either registered with the TPS or has made it clear to the caller that those calls are unwelcome. It is illegal under privacy and electronic communications regulations. I will clarify the issue about faxes and somebody will write to my hon. Friend.

Barry Gardiner: The estimable Hansard Society released a report earlier this week that said that the number of people volunteering in the country had gone down by 8%. May we have a debate on why the Big Society is shrinking under this Government?

George Young: I read the Hansard Society report, which I thought was more about engagement in the political process than the overall propensity to volunteer. I can only speak for my own constituency, where I have seen no reduction in the numbers of people coming forward to volunteer. On the contrary, I think that there has been a growth in the breadth and support of voluntary organisations, certainly in my constituency. I am sure that my constituency is not alone.

Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House has today published a Green Paper on parliamentary privilege with some perfectly sensible proposals based on the work of seven Select Committees. Would it not be worth while having a debate so that the House can address how we deal with the terminology and language of parliamentary privilege? As the Green Paper says:
	“Parliamentary privilege is an often misunderstood concept. It is not helped by its name; the connotations of the word ‘privilege’ are unfortunate, as it is associated with special treatment for individuals. The term ‘parliamentary privilege’ might superficially imply, to those not familiar with it, that there are special rights or protections for parliamentarians, perhaps even to the extent that MPs and peers are ‘above the law’.”
	That is clearly not the case, it has never been the case and it should never be the case, but we are confounded by the language of parliamentary privilege and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is now time to rethink through the whole of that language before we can get through to sensible proposals for reform.

Mr Speaker: For a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman had opened the Second Reading of a Bill on the matter.

Tony Baldry: It was difficult dealing with the chuntering of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) while I was getting through it, Mr Speaker.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the written ministerial statement and the publication, and I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who did all the heavy lifting on this document. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is right; what we
	plan to do is set up a Joint Committee to consider the issues raised in the document. I know that my hon. Friend’s guidance and advice would be welcome on that Committee. One issue is the language that we use about privilege, which implies our privilege whereas it actually is about protecting the rights of those we represent to ensure that this place operates without outside interference. We are trying to start a consultation and I am sure that my hon. Friend’s point about language is important. It is right that we should have a Government-led review of privilege on the basis of the Green Paper.

Bill Esterson: The most important issue for my constituents is the double-dip recession, which was made in Downing street. May we have a debate next week or a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can explore this urgent issue and how we can get this country out of recession and back to jobs and growth?

George Young: We have had a number of days debating the Budget, the Finance Bill and the Financial Services Bill, so it is not the case that the Government have sought to avoid discussion of the economy. The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing, and we are creating 400,000 apprenticeships, we are helping people into employment with the Work programme, we are cutting corporation tax, we are setting up 24 new enterprise zones and we are investing billions in transport and communications. If we do not deal with the deficit that we inherited, we will lose our triple A rating and the average family on the average mortgage might find that their outgoings go up by £1,000 a month. I am sure that that is the last thing the hon. Gentleman wants to happen to his constituents.

Kris Hopkins: On Friday 18 May, I am looking forward to taking part in the launch of the Keighley and Worth valley branch of the National Autistic Society. Autism is a lifelong condition that affects about 1,000 people in my constituency and some half a million across the country. Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State to describe what the Government are doing to support people who suffer from that disability and the people who look after them?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and I applaud the work of the National Autistic Society, what it does in early diagnosis and early treatment and what it does to encourage many schools to provide support to those who suffer from autism. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes a very keen interest in how we can do more for those with special needs and there might be an opportunity when we return after Prorogation for some debates about the steps we are taking to enable children who suffer from autism to recover and do well at school.

Tom Harris: I respectfully remind the Leader of the House that Government Ministers are accountable not to the Leveson inquiry but to this House, just as ordinary Members of this House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—are accountable not to the Leveson inquiry but to their constituents. Does the Leader of the House agree with the wording in the ministerial
	code of conduct on the relationship between a Secretary of State and a special adviser or do the Government intend to make a retrospective amendment to the code?

George Young: We have no plans to amend the ministerial code in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It makes sense to allow the Leveson inquiry to continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is sometimes accused of having made up his mind before hearing the evidence; there is a real risk of Opposition Members making that mistake by coming to a conclusion before they have heard both sides of the case. I honestly think it makes sense to proceed with the Leveson inquiry before jumping to conclusions.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have a debate about the correlation between the size of the state and economic growth? Evidence from around the world shows that economies with a smaller state sector have faster and higher economic growth. My constituency is the 10th least reliant on public sector employment, has less than half the national average of unemployment and is one of the 20 fastest growing districts in the country. Does that not demonstrate to the Leader of the House that the Government must press on with measures to rebalance our economy as a matter of urgency?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that if we want sustainable growth and secure, well-paid jobs we must rebalance the economy so that it is less dependent on public sector employment and more dependent on private sector employment. I welcome the way that my hon. Friend’s constituency has diversified and is less dependent on public sector employment. He has just outlined the advantages of a relatively high employment rate and a relatively low unemployment rate. That is the transition that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to promote in other parts of the country, with assistance for those parts that are at the moment over-dependent on the public sector through the regional growth fund and with other measures.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for his help over this Session. Perhaps he could help me once more in finding the £500 million missing from the NHS budget. In the 2011-12 budget, £900 million was saved; £400 million has gone back into the 2012-13 budget. May we have an urgent statement, debate or just a letter to say where the £500 million has disappeared to?

George Young: I would be surprised if that had disappeared. I would expect it to be reinvested in the NHS, but I am sure that I can generate a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to explain the accounting procedures to which the hon. Lady has just referred and to give her the reassurance that the money that Parliament has voted to the NHS will indeed be applied to the NHS.

Bob Blackman: During the Easter recess, the Government released £600 million for new primary places across England and Wales. I looked with great interest to see who had got the money— £382 million has gone to London; I know that £30 million
	has gone to the London borough of Brent, which is extremely welcome—and I looked for the allocation to the London borough of Harrow, only to find that it was zero. I then made a series of phone calls to find out who was responsible, only to discover that the incompetent Harrow council had failed to supply the data, and therefore received no money. Despite many efforts, we still do not have an answer on how much money will be available to provide much-needed primary places in Harrow. Will the Leader of the House offer the House an opportunity of a statement so that we can clear up this matter once and for all?

George Young: I cannot offer a statement, but I commend my hon. Friend’s energy in seeking to ensure that the children in his constituency get a square deal at school. There is an issue between the London borough of Harrow and the Department for Education about the school capacity data that Harrow provided to the Department in 2011. That issue is under investigation, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to write to my hon. Friend to bring him up to date. I want to assure other colleagues that that will not affect allocations to other local authorities.

Nick Smith: In the summer, the Department for Transport will decide its programme for capital investment in our railways. In Blaenau Gwent, where we have 25% worklessness, we are seeking electrification of the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line. May we have a debate on transport investment and the boost that it can give to local economies?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made a commitment to electrify the line to Cardiff, and he will welcome that decision. I cannot promise an early debate on transport matters, but I hope that there will be an opportunity, perhaps in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, to touch on transport-related issues. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport can outline the investment that has been made in Wales to promote rail travel and follow up the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

James Morris: May I pay tribute to Councillor Angus Adams of Dudley council, who was also chairman of Centro, who has sadly died? He was a much-loved character and a passionate advocate of local rail transport in the west midlands, as well as an advocate of the benefits of high-speed rail. May we have a debate on the economic benefits of HS2 and what it will bring to the west midlands, including jobs and employment in my constituency?

George Young: I am sorry to learn of the death of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I would welcome such a debate. As he knows, we are committed to HS2, not least for the reasons that he outlined of jobs and employment in the west midlands. I understand that HS2 could support employment growth of more than 8,000 jobs in the west midlands and would help to regenerate Birmingham’s east side. The Curzon Street station would create 1,400 jobs, and the Washwood Heath rolling-stock depot would create 400 jobs in
	construction. That is why I believe that HS2 is a project that should be supported by Members from all parts of the House.

Madeleine Moon: Tempers are starting to fray in parliamentary offices following an e-mail from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on 16 April at 17.18 asking right hon. and hon. Members to send a letter on to their staff about a change in their contract. That change does not apply to those members of staff who are on the old parliamentary contract. There is confusion among staff. The timetabled deadline is Monday next week. Some MPs have not sent the e-mail on; some members of staff do not know what they should do about their contract. Could we have at least a statement by Monday telling us whether Members have to send that e-mail on to their staff and what members of staff on the previous contract should do about the change in arrangements?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the confusion experienced by the hon. Lady’s staff. From memory, I think that that was a beneficial change by IPSA to improve redundancy arrangements for staff. IPSA is an independent organisation, as she knows, but I will relay to it the concern that she has expressed. I regret any uncertainty among staff who work for Members of Parliament, and I will see whether the clarification that she seeks can be sent to her as a matter of urgency.

Brandon Lewis: Companies such as E-Tech in Great Yarmouth have offered apprenticeships to young people which can give them experience that takes them all over the world. In Great Yarmouth alone, apprenticeships have almost doubled under this Government to 730. May we have an early debate in the House to highlight the positive opportunities offered by that excellent programme, which gives young people an excellent opportunity for work?

George Young: I am delighted to hear of the increase in apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are committed to helping more people to benefit from high-quality apprenticeships. As a demand-led programme, it is dependent on employers coming forward. My hon. Friend has done a great deal to encourage them to do so and bid for apprenticeships. That is something that we can all do in our own constituencies to give the programme added momentum.

Lilian Greenwood: The Government’s double-dip recession has made life hard for hard-working families in Nottingham South. Now, the Government’s shambolic housing benefit reforms mean that those families will have to compete with displaced Londoners for homes, jobs and school places. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate on the housing crisis that his Government have caused?

George Young: The principle of a cap on housing benefit was supported by the hon. Lady’s party as well as by mine. We have a cap of £21,000 a year, which is a reasonable level of housing benefit, bearing in mind the rents that people in work may be asked to pay. She will know, too, that there is a transitional fund of £190 million to help the process of adjustment from where we are now to the regime that is being introduced. That
	is the right way to approach a bill that was soaring out of control. Among the measures that we have had to take to control public expenditure, a housing benefit cap was a proportionate and reasonable step.

Karen Bradley: Leek further education college in my constituency has received an additional £2 million from the Skills Funding Agency, which it is using to invest in new engineering training. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the support that the Government have given to vocational training to give our young people the best start in life?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who complements the point made by another of my hon. Friends about the initiatives that we are taking to equip young people with the skills that they need. I was delighted to hear of the extra £2 million invested in my hon. Friend’s college, which I know will be well spent. She reminds the House of the steps that we have taken to enable young people to compete in a competitive job market.

Jonathan Reynolds: How can we not have an urgent debate about the state of the economy before we prorogue? If the GDP figures yesterday had been positive, the Government would cite that as proof that the strategy was working, but they were not—they were terrible. Should the Government not think again, show some humility and give the House a chance to debate that?

George Young: I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said a few moments ago. We had the Budget, followed by several days’ debate on the Budget. We then had Second Reading of the Finance Bill, followed by two days of debate on the Floor of the House on measures in the Finance Bill. We then had a debate on the Financial Services Bill. It honestly is not the case that the Government have denied the House an opportunity to debate the economy. On top of that, the Opposition are allotted regular Opposition days, which they can use if they want further debates. The answer is that we have debated the matter. We would welcome further debates, and there may be an opportunity in the new Session when we debate the Queen’s Speech for a further exchange about the economy.

Marcus Jones: The Nuneaton-Coventry rail upgrade, A5 improvements at Nuneaton, the A45 toll-bar island upgrade, and the A14/M1 upgrade are all vital infrastructure projects that the Government have introduced to support the midlands economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that investment in transport infrastructure is vital to generate economic growth, and will he agree to a debate on the future of transport infrastructure?

George Young: One of the decisions that the Government made on taking office was to preserve the capital programme that we inherited and, in fact, to add to it in certain parts and to make the necessary reductions in revenue expenditure. That is why the projects to which my hon. Friend referred could go ahead. It enables the country to be more competitive in world markets if we modernise our transport infrastructure as he outlined.

Michael McCann: As chair of the all-party group on the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, may I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on procedural deficiencies at the UK Border Agency, with particular reference to its interface with SO15—Counter Terrorism Command—which may be preventing the pursuit of people living in our country who have participated in genocide and crimes against humanity?

George Young: This is an important matter which, of course, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that those who are charged with genocide are intercepted when they arrive in this country by the UK Border Agency and then, if necessary, arrested. I will certainly pass that on to the Home Secretary, and I applaud the work that the hon. Gentleman does on the all-party group.

David Nuttall: May we please have a debate on the outcome of last week’s Brighton conference on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights so that Members can have the opportunity to examine the extent to which the new arrangements may reduce the number of Court rulings which directly oppose the wishes of this House?

George Young: There was a written ministerial statement on—I think—16 April which summarised the outcome of the Brighton conference. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers are to be complimented on what they did in a relatively short window—six months—in getting agreement for reform of the European Court, strengthening subsidiarity, improving the efficiency of the Court and raising the quality of the nomination process for judges. There are a number of outstanding issues which I know my hon. Friend is concerned with and which I know the House will want to return to in the next Session.

Diana Johnson: In a double-dip recession, drugs education is even more important, so may we please have a debate on why the Government have scrapped the £69,000 going to the drugs education forum, which includes more than 30 organisations, among them the Association of Chief Police Officers and the NSPCC, sharing and providing good practice to schools? Why, when I wrote to Lord Henley, did he refuse to deal with the issue?

George Young: I am sure my noble Friend Lord Henley would want to respond to any representations from any Member of Parliament, particularly on this serious issue. On support for education, we have maintained constant in cash terms the support for children and we have complemented it with the pupil premium. We have had to take some difficult decisions on public expenditure which, in all honesty, the hon. Lady’s party would also have had to take, had it got into government and been faced with the deficit. I will see whether I can elicit from the appropriate Minister a response on support for the project she mentioned.

Therese Coffey: I have constituents who are suffering from phone scams where companies acting as third parties are selling contracts that are very expensive. The people involved are being sent to jail for fraud, yet the consumers are still being held to pay the vastly inflated bills by phone companies. May we have an urgent statement on the matter from the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs?

George Young: I am sorry to hear that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are being confronted with very high phone bills as a result of activity which sounds to me highly immoral. Of course I will raise it with the appropriate regulator, Ofcom, or the Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who has responsibility for consumer protection, and see whether we need to build in additional safeguards to protect people from exorbitant telephone bills for calls which they are not conscious of having made.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the work of food banks? The Leader of the House may have seen early-day motion 3006 praising the work of the volunteers and staff at Harlow food bank, not least because it has now given food to more than 5,000 people and been nominated as Dods local charity of the year.
	[That this House celebrates the nomination of Harlow Foodbank for the 2012 DODS Local Charity of the Year Award, and urges every hon. Member to vote for them; commends Harlow Foodbank for supporting individuals and families in crisis by providing free emergency food; further notes that since 2009 it has provided food to over 5,000 people; welcomes what the Secretary of State for  Work and Pensions has done to allow jobcentres to give this foodbank vouchers; and recognises the work of Harlow Foodbank in really making a difference to people’s lives in Harlow, as a lifeline to people who are going through a period of difficulty or crisis in their life.]
	Will the Leader of the House vote for it and urge all hon. Members to do so as well?

George Young: I applaud the work of the Harlow food bank. My hon. Friend asks me to vote for it. There is an Andover food bank in my constituency, and I think the people there would be distressed if I were to vote for another food bank, but I applaud the work that food banks do in constituencies throughout the country, making help available to people who, for whatever reason, have no cash at the end of the week, and I commend the work that is being done in Harlow.

John Glen: At least three of my constituents had their final divorce settlements agreed on the basis of their Ministry of Defence spouse’s pension levels, as agreed by the actuaries in the MOD. They have recently received letters informing them that their pensions will be significantly reduced. Will the Leader of the House urge one of the Defence Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box, apologise and take corrective action so that these three women can have a decent pension, as they imagined they would?

George Young: It so happens that there are three Defence Ministers sitting on the Front Bench, all of whom heard that question. The nod of assent from the Secretary of State indicates that he has that problem on board and he will make urgent inquiries. If any injustice has taken place, he will ensure that it is put right.

Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on future force levels in Afghanistan.
	Let me begin by paying tribute to the commitment, professionalism and bravery of the men and women of the United Kingdom’s armed forces deployed in Afghanistan. Since UK forces first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001, over 100,000 personnel have served on operations there, many for more than one tour, and many more, military and civilian, have supported the mission. Since the surge in the international commitment to the mission as a whole in 2009, which boosted the forces available to ISAF—the international security assistance force—by 30,000, the United Kingdom has maintained an enduring level of conventional forces in Afghanistan of 9,500, the great majority of whom are now in the UK area of operations in central Helmand.
	This has been a critical period for the mission, for UK forces, for ISAF and, significantly, for the Afghan national security forces—ANSF. Our combined efforts have arrested the momentum of the insurgency, diminished its capability, and weakened its strategic position, but it still represents a threat to the people of Afghanistan and to the security of Afghan territory. It retains the ability to launch significant operations, as the attack on Kabul on 15 and 16 April demonstrates. The response of the ANSF to that attack demonstrated just how far they have come in their capability and ability to undertake major operations autonomously. They are justifiably proud of their performance.
	Our aim in Afghanistan is to build Afghan governance and security forces to the point where they are resilient in the face of any residual threat from the insurgency, confident in their ability to protect their own citizens and able to deny safe haven to terrorists who seek to use Afghan territory as a base from which to threaten international security. Significant progress is being made across Afghanistan and the monthly progress report for March, published today by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, sets out more details. Nowhere is that progress more obvious than in Helmand.
	There are now 12 district governors in Helmand’s 14 districts, up from just five in 2008. Thirty extra schools have opened since 2010, with another 46 currently being built. Twenty-nine extra health clinics have opened. There are more roads and more bridges, and bazaars re-opening, meaning more commerce and opportunities for ordinary Helmandis. In the past year alone, income levels in Helmand have increased by 20%. Prosperity will be a critical weapon in the battle against the insurgency.
	All this social and economic progress has been made possible by the improvements in security across the province. This has been facilitated not just by the surge in ISAF troops, but by the increasing number and quality of Afghan national security forces. The size of the Afghan national army in regional command south-west, which includes Helmand province, has increased by 30% in the past 18 months. Two of the three districts in Task Force Helmand’s area of operations have now
	entered formal transition. The security situation in those districts is unrecognisable compared with the start of British operations in 2006.
	The whole of Lashkar Gah district and the most populous 60% of Nad Ali is now completely under Afghan control. The ANSF has demonstrated repeatedly its ability to provide security in these areas and, as a result, 36 of Task Force Helmand’s checkpoints, patrol bases and military positions have been handed over to the ANSF in the past six months, while a further 16 new posts have been constructed and occupied by Afghan forces.
	This has enabled Taskforce Helmand to reduce its basing footprint by 50%. As circumstances allow, UK and ISAF forces are progressively moving towards the support role of training, advising and assisting.
	During 20th Armoured Brigade’s recent tour, the campaign moved to being run on an Afghan-formulated campaign plan, written in Dari by the Afghans and executed by them. Seven major operations were carried out in central Helmand over the six-month period of Operation Herrick 15—a pace that, in the words of the UK brigade commander,
	“sometimes left us running to catch up with our Afghan colleagues.”
	In the recent Operation Now Roz, more than 1,000 members of the ANSF, supported by British forces, cleared insurgents from a key heartland within the Helmand river valley. While UK forces secured the flanks, the Afghans cleared more than 200 compounds, made safe 44 improvised explosive devices, found seven bomb-making factories and confiscated more than 145 kg of home-made explosives. It was the fourth major ANA operation in central Helmand in four months, and the largest and most complex so far. The success of the operation further demonstrated the ANSF’s increasing professionalism and capability.
	Helmand remains difficult and challenging and the insurgency remains a constant threat, but the progress we have made demonstrates that we are on target to meet the transition objectives agreed by President Karzai and the international community at Lisbon in November 2010. Maintaining that momentum will be the challenge of the transition process between now and the end of 2014. There is no room at all for complacency and much work needs to be done to maintain the momentum of progress in building ANSF capability, but the reality on the ground is that Afghan forces are increasingly taking the lead. That allows ISAF, including UK forces, gradually to reduce force levels and change their role.
	The Prime Minister announced in July last year that we would be drawing down UK forces by 500 to 9,000 by the end of this year. The Chief of the Defence Staff has now provided military advice on how those reductions will be achieved. The House will understand that it would be inappropriate to go into exact operational details or talk about specific capabilities, but I can give a general overview of how the manpower reductions will be achieved.
	First, I can confirm that the majority of the 500 being withdrawn will be combat troops, reflecting the reduction in the need for ISAF ground-holding capabilities as transition progresses and the Afghans take over positions. Secondly, we will merge the UK forces headquarters in Nahri Sarraj North and Nahri Sarraj South to align better with the increasingly important Afghan
	administrative boundaries and the civilian control structure, which will deliver efficiencies and manpower savings. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in support personnel and enablers, commensurate with the changes I have set out. Finally, we will withdraw some combat support capabilities for which there is no longer an operational need as a result of the availability of alternative weapons systems in theatre. Those measures will reduce the United Kingdom’s enduring conventional force levels to 9,000 and will be completed by the end of this year.
	I can also inform the House that, in addition to the overall reduction in numbers, a further 200 combat troops will be transferred from ground-holding roles to security force assistance teams working with the ANSF. For the avoidance of doubt, I should be clear that whatever role is being fulfilled, including the training of ANSF forces, British forces in Afghanistan will retain combat capability until the end of 2014.
	The details I have announced today are consistent with our intention to move out of a combat role by the end of 2014. They demonstrate our commitment to the process of transition and the increasing capacity and capability of the ANSF, reflecting its real achievements on the ground. As the ANSF grows and gradually takes lead responsibility for security across the country, ISAF’s military footprint, including that of the United Kingdom, will reduce further. We will keep the House informed of future plans for further reductions in UK troop numbers as conditions on the ground permit.
	Our combat role will end by December 2014, but the United Kingdom’s commitment to Afghanistan is for the long term. That is demonstrated in part by my announcement last week at the NATO ministerial meeting that we will commit £70 million a year to the funding of the ANSF after 2014, and by our commitment to run the Afghan national army officer training academy, which we are building outside Kabul.
	Each nation has its own constitutional processes in which to consider its contribution as transition moves forward, but all agree that ISAF cohesion must be maintained. The UK will continue to work and plan closely with our ISAF partners, particularly those operating alongside us in Helmand, including the United States, which provides the bulk of coalition forces. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday:
	“The speed of the reductions between now and the end of 2014 will be in accordance with the conditions on the ground and with what is right in terms of transitioning from allied control to Afghan control—and at all times, of course, paramount in our minds is the safety and security of our brave armed forces”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 943.]
	That safety and security will be best assured by working with our allies in a co-ordinated draw-down as responsibilities are handed progressively to the ANSF. That is the way to honour and protect the legacy of our involvement in Afghanistan and the sacrifice made by the 409 servicemen and women who have given their lives and the hundreds more who have suffered life-changing injuries. I commend this statement to the House.

Russell Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance sight of it. My right hon. Friend the shadow
	Secretary of State is in Scotland at a family engagement and could not return to the Commons because of the short notice of the statement.
	Labour Members have been consistent, both in government and in opposition, in our support for the mission in Afghanistan. We have immense pride in our armed forces, who fight for others’ security and peace in order to protect our own here at home. We will offer the Government our support where they do the right thing, but we will scrutinise their decisions and urge them to make the case for a conflict that we believe remains firmly in our national interest.
	We agree with the Secretary of State that there has been progress in Afghanistan. The continued growth in the size of the Afghan national army and the Taliban’s agreement to open an office in Qatar as a place to hold peace talks are notable examples, alongside those he mentioned, but such gains have been overshadowed by recent events. Key allies have unilaterally announced divergent withdrawal dates; instability in the US-Pakistan relationship remains; infiltration of the army by the Taliban remains a serious concern; and, most worrying, we have all recently seen the Taliban’s continued capacity to launch “spectacular” attacks in allied-controlled areas. Any discussion of troop numbers must be held in that context. Although we welcome today’s update, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer some further questions about long-term Afghan security.
	It is the political conditions within and beyond Afghan borders that will ultimately determine whether the conditions that led us to war in the first place never return. Disconcertingly, last month the Prime Minister made clear his view that the handover to Afghan forces could be achieved satisfactorily without a political settlement, but that is contrary to all experience. A power vacuum would encourage neighbouring countries to seek influence, could allow the Taliban to return, and would jeopardise the gains already outlined. A clear political strategy must match military might. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government’s efforts are focused on achieving an inclusive political settlement and give us an assessment of the progress made?
	The Secretary of State will know that, painful though the process may be, constructive, proactive and flexible negotiations with the Taliban are necessary if any lasting settlement is to be reached. We must demand a denunciation of violence and an endorsement of the principles of the constitution, but there will be no peace without a settlement reflective of a diverse nation. Will he therefore outline how Britain is supporting the Afghan Government in facilitating that and, indeed, the role of regional partners in that effort?
	We agree with the Government that there must not be a cliff-edge withdrawal, and that reductions must take place in areas where Afghan forces have the skill and capacity to take full responsibility. It may worry some that the Secretary of State has talked today of transition as a sign of progress, because recently British fatalities have tragically occurred in Lashkar Gah, an area where transition has been completed. Does he have full confidence in the capacity of those to whom we are transferring responsibility? What assurances can he give the House that, following those events, the scrutiny of Afghan forces assuming lead security responsibility has been strengthened?
	Further, will the Secretary of State expand on the nature of the role of British personnel in Afghanistan post-2014? What is involved in the combat support role that they will play, and can he confirm that any British personnel in Afghanistan post-2014 will be non-combat and will rely entirely on Afghan forces for their security? Does he have full confidence in that arrangement and does he believe that changes need to be made to the police and army recruitment processes? That is particularly pertinent to the police, whose quality, by their Government’s own admission, has not yet reached the required standard.
	What assessment has been made of the size of the residual British presence in Afghanistan, and what commitments will the Government seek to gain from NATO partners at the Chicago summit next month on their long-term commitment post-2014? The Secretary of State mentioned the recently announced £70 million contribution to a £4 billion international fund for Afghanistan to support Afghan forces, and we support that important investment. Does he expect a greater UK contribution to be announced at the Chicago NATO summit? As we approach the summit, what will the Government’s goals be? Does the Secretary of State agree that they need to include a co-ordinated timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces, a stable funding package for the Afghan security forces and a status-of-forces agreement on the role of any international forces after 2014? To that list, I hope he will add genuine progress on a stable political settlement in Afghanistan, bringing regional powers into the agreement.
	In all these discussions, uppermost in our minds are all those who are still serving in that most difficult environment and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We pay tribute to them and to their families.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and delighted, as will our armed forces be, that once again the cross-party consensus on a campaign that was entered into for reasons of our national security interest, and continues to be prosecuted for those reasons, has been reasserted by an Opposition Front Bencher.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who leads for the Opposition on defence, is not able to be here. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) says that this was because of the statement’s short notice, but I make it clear that the title of the statement was laid last night before the House rose, as is the proper procedure.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the US-Pakistan relationship. He is absolutely right that good relations between the US and Pakistan are crucial, and recent disruptions to those relations are a matter of concern. Good relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan will also be central to ensuring the stability of the region.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about the Taliban’s capacity to mount attacks and refers, I think, to the Kabul attack. Yes, that attack caused significant disruption, but we need to be clear that it was a complete failure: the attack itself failed to inflict any casualties or any significant damage. A number of members of the Afghan security forces and some civilians were killed in the clearance operation afterwards, but there is no doubt that the attack was a failure.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about the handover of security responsibility to the Afghans potentially creating a power vacuum, but that is definitively not the case. ISAF is very clear that the draw-down needs to be measured and calibrated to match the building capability of the Afghan security forces, so that they can take over the ground-holding and security role, and we ensure that a power vacuum is avoided. I agree that it is not something we would tolerate.
	I agree also that we need an inclusive political settlement. All Afghan citizens who are prepared to renounce violence and accept the constitution need to be brought inside the tent, and we need to see diversity in the way Afghanistan is run. I have to say that Helmand is leading the way: we have the significant engagement of female political and community figures in community councils and district councils in the area of operations for which we are responsible, and the Afghan peace and reintegration programme has so far recruited 4,000—admittedly, mainly low-level—Afghan fighters back into mainstream Afghan life. That is a basis on which we will want to build very significantly over the remaining two-and-a-half years of ISAF combat operations.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about the scrutiny of Afghan forces, referring, I think, to the very tragic recent “green on blue” incident in Lashkar Gah. There is in fact no evidence that that was an act of infiltration. Of course we have to be constantly alert to infiltration, but we have also to recognise the reality that Afghanistan is a society where people are used to settling personal grievances by resorting to violence, including violence with firearms. I have seen no evidence that the incident was an act of Taliban infiltration.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me about the UK’s role and the size of force lay-down post-2014, but no decisions have been taken yet, other than that we will not be there in anything like our current force strength and we will not be there in a combat role. We have made a commitment to run the Afghan national officer training academy, but beyond that we will make our decisions with our allies over the coming months and, probably, years. It is not a decision that we need to make now; the process will start at Chicago but it will certainly not be completed there.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the UK contribution that I announced last week of £70 million, or about $110 million, to a fund of $4 billion—not £4 billion, as he said—to fund the future ANSF is likely to be increased at Chicago. That is not the case. That £70 million is the UK’s proposed contribution, and we have decided to make the announcement early to encourage others to make a commitment.
	Of course we will co-ordinate with our allies on the timetable, but the timetable for draw-down will be responsive. It will depend on what is happening on the ground and on what our allies are doing, and of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that any ISAF forces remaining in-country after 2014 will need a stationing-of-forces agreement.

Bob Stewart: The battalion that I had the honour to command returned from Afghanistan two years ago with 12 men dead and more than 100 wounded, and it returns to the country in October. I am worried about two things. First, we must ensure that as we withdraw we retain our soldiers in sufficient
	strength so that there is a balance to deter attacks. Secondly, I am concerned that we have had too many instances of rogue Afghan national army soldiers turning their guns on our allies and on our personnel. We have to be very careful, and I ask the Secretary of State to look at that.

Philip Hammond: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and of course the so-called “green on blue” incidents are particularly tragic. I was in Lashkar Gah two days after the most recent incident, when I was able to speak to Afghan commanders about it. I can tell the House that they feel a deep sense of shame and betrayal about what has happened. They recognise that the future of Afghanistan depends on effective partnering between ISAF forces and Afghan forces, and they recognise the huge damage that those very rare incidents cause.
	UK forces are in routine contact with their Afghan counterparts—there are thousands of contacts every day —and we have to see these tragic but very rare incidents in that context. I assure my hon. Friend that commanders on the ground have taken a number of sensible precautionary measures to ensure that UK forces are always in a position to defend themselves if necessary, and the Afghans themselves have taken a number of measures to ensure the more effective vetting and monitoring of their own soldiers.

David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be a mighty sense of relief when Britain’s combat role in Afghanistan comes to an end? There are bound to be different points of view in this House—it would be odd if there were not. However, does he recognise that very many people in this country—I would say a large majority—believe that we have been involved for more than 10 years in an unwinnable war? The sooner British troops come home, the better.

Philip Hammond: I suspect that there is an almighty sense of relief when any war is over. I am sure that the British people wish for nothing more than to see our troops come home, but that will be a pyrrhic achievement if the territory of Afghanistan again becomes available to international terrorism that attacks us and our allies. We have to bring our troops home, but we have to do the job properly and ensure that the Afghan national security forces can secure the territory, protect their own country and ensure that international terrorism never again takes root in Afghanistan.

Bob Russell: For those who have served, for those who have suffered life-changing injuries and for those who have lost loved ones, to honour and protect their involvement, I welcome the confirmation by the Secretary of State that the United Kingdom’s commitment to Afghanistan is for the long term. With that in mind, will he prepare a statement on what has happened to the Kajaki dam project in the four years since 2008, when soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade took a turbine through dangerous terrain without losing a single life?

Philip Hammond: There is good news on the Kajaki dam project. I am trying to find the exact details in rapid time, but I am afraid that I cannot. Further
	equipment has been installed at Kajaki—I was briefed on the project during my visit to Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago—but I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Derek Twigg: If the Secretary of State receives advice by 2014 that the security situation has not improved to the extent that is envisaged or has deteriorated, or that the Afghan Government do not believe that their security forces can take on the security role that is envisaged, will the combat role continue after 2014?

Philip Hammond: We are very clear that United Kingdom forces will not be in a combat role after 2014. We have to bring this engagement to a close. It was a measured decision to fix December 2014 as the end of combat operations. We are highly confident about the level of development of the ANSF.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no example in history of an insurgency being effectively and sustainably defeated by foreign troops. It has to be local forces that sustainably defeat an insurgency. That is the path on which we are embarked in Afghanistan.

Julian Brazier: I welcome the statement, which stands in marked contrast to the gloom and doom we heard a year or two ago from some elements in the House. I put it to the Secretary of State that for the military success in which our troops have played such an important part to be seen through, a national political settlement is crucial. To that end, the idea that has been floated of bringing the elections forward a year so that the new Government are in place in good time would be a constructive step.

Philip Hammond: The timing of the Afghan presidential election is a matter for the Afghans, in accordance with the Afghan constitution. Our concern is to ensure that the constitution is upheld, that a democratic process is followed and that there is an orderly transfer of power from President Karzai at the end of his term.

Mike Gapes: In 2014 or 2015 when our combat role has ended, who will provide force protection for our trainers?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I have just written myself a note to remind me to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. When we talk about not having combat troops in place, that does not mean that the troops who are in Afghanistan will not be permitted to defend themselves should they come under attack. Clearly, when British personnel are deployed in an area where there is danger, they must have the capability to defend themselves. The Afghan national officer training academy is being built within the perimeter of an American facility that will be defended by US troops.

John Baron: I too pay tribute to our troops, but I continue to have grave doubts about the capability that the Afghan forces will have when ISAF ceases combat operations. What scope is there to drop the preconditions to talks with our enemies, which are unrealistic in many respects, so that
	we can explore possible common ground, particularly given the fundamental differences between the Taliban and al-Qaeda? I suggest to the Secretary of State that those of us who served in Northern Ireland showed, I hope, that one can talk and fight at the same time.

Philip Hammond: I have no doubt about the growing competence, capability and confidence of the Afghan national security forces. They will inevitably fight a different type of campaign after 2014 from that fought by ISAF. I have a high level of confidence in their ability to hold the ground against the insurgents. The UK Government recognise the need for an Afghan-led reconciliation process, but the basis for that must be that the people who are involved renounce the use of violence and agree to pursue their objectives by political means.

Gisela Stuart: Following on from the previous question, we talk about insurgents as though they were a uniform group. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of whether the pattern of who the insurgents are has changed and of the differentiated response that is therefore required?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One striking statistic shows the percentage of the reintegrees—horrible word—who have joined the peace and reconciliation programme whose original gripe with the Afghan Government had nothing to do with ideology, but was a land dispute or some other local dispute that led them to feel disfranchised and disillusioned with Afghan society. Sometimes it was a reaction to the corruption that is still, I am afraid, only too endemic. She is right that there is a hard core of people who are ideologically motivated, but there is also a much softer group of insurgents who are alienated from Afghan society but not ideologically motivated against it. That represents fertile territory for the reconciliation programme.

Jack Lopresti: Does the Secretary of State believe that our troops have the kit and equipment they need to continue to do the job effectively?

Philip Hammond: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that when Brigadier Patrick Sanders, who commanded 20th Armoured Brigade during Herrick 15, was in the House on Tuesday evening, he said, as Members who were there will have heard, that the equipment that he had available during his tour was the best that he had known in his 26 years in the Army. The soldiers who are fighting for us have the best personal protection equipment they have ever had and their commanders have the enablers that they need. I have no doubt that, at long last, we have the kit that we need to fight this campaign.

Tony Lloyd: It is not obvious that the political process has made the same progress as the military one. In that context, does President Karzai have the capacity to deal with the issues that the Secretary of State has mentioned today, such as corruption, and allow more people to be reintegrated? In any case, does he have the capacity to have proper dialogue with his previous political opponents? Without a political solution there will be no long-term capacity for peace.

Philip Hammond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no long-term solution without reconciliation and reintegration, but it would be a mistake to judge Afghan society by our own standards. While I was in Helmand, I was astonished to see an attitude survey suggesting that Afghans object to the level of bribes, not their existence. They accept the existence of bribes as part of everyday lives, but they do not like their reaching extortionate levels. We have to go with the grain of Afghan society, but he is absolutely right that the willingness and ability of the political elite to manage reconciliation to a successful conclusion will ultimately determine whether the process succeeds.

James Gray: The nation will be very glad that today marks the beginning of the end of combat operations in Afghanistan by our magnificent troops there. Nevertheless, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the next three or four years will be among the most dangerous and sensitive times that our troops have had to face, as they withdraw, and that any information that he might inadvertently give in the House or elsewhere might endanger that withdrawal? Will he therefore be very cautious indeed about the tactical level of information that he gives out about the withdrawal?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right. As we go through the withdrawal, our troops will face new and different challenges, and nothing that we say in the House should place them at any greater risk. I reassure him that my statement was made with the full agreement of the military commanders to the detail that it contained.

Caroline Lucas: Figures suggest that UK arms sales to Afghanistan are doubling, while Transparency International’s corruption index still shows the regime there as one of the most corrupt in the world. In that context, as we bring our brave troops home, how will the end use of the arms that we sell to Afghanistan be monitored?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows, we have one of the most rigorous arms control and monitoring regimes of any nation, but if we want the ANSF to take over the combat role from us, we clearly have to ensure that it is effectively equipped to do so.

Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State confirm that our American allies are seriously considering the retention of one or more strategic bases in Afghanistan after 2014 as the best way, and indeed probably the only way, of ensuring that the military gains and any political settlement do not unravel after that date?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend will know that that has been widely reported as a US objective, but my understanding is that nothing has been agreed or finalised between the Afghans and the US on post-2014 lay-down at this stage.

Paul Flynn: May I offer my heartfelt condolences and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) to
	the family of Sapper Connor Ray? Sapper Ray came from the city that we both represent and was the 409th fatality from Britain. He was among the bravest of the brave.
	The Secretary of State’s statement contained, as always, excessive optimism about the situation in Afghanistan. Will he admit, and tell us about, the growing strength of the Taliban outside Helmand and the growing area that they control? Is there not a real possibility that after going into Afghanistan to get rid of a Taliban Government, when we leave we might find a new Taliban Government in control?

Philip Hammond: No. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his question. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with his condolences to the family and friends of Sapper Connor Ray. I am sure the whole House join him in that.
	It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has a fixed agenda and just keeps reiterating it. The reality is that the Taliban are significantly weakened and do not have the ground-holding capability that they did before. Yes, there are areas in the east of the country, along the border with Pakistan, where there is still significant Taliban activity. However, an Afghanistan in which Helmand province, the main highway and the big cities are under the Afghan Government’s control will be a viable Afghanistan that can contain an insurgency in the mountains along the Pakistani border. The key to the battle is in the big cities of the south and south-west and on highway 1, and it is about ensuring freedom of movement and control of the big population areas.
	I wish the hon. Gentleman could find it in his heart to share our aspiration for Afghanistan and take it from me that the military gains on the ground and the growth in the capability of the Afghan national security forces are real. This is a good news story, but I agree with him that it is not irreversible.

Andrew Murrison: I welcome the statement and the intent that it contained, but does my right hon. Friend recognise the remarks that General John Allen made in evidence to the Senate armed services committee last month? He said that he was having what he described as a “strategic conversation” with his political masters about the US draw-down towards the end of the year, in advance of a report on the subject that he intended to deliver later this year. To what extent is the announcement that my right hon. Friend has made today provisional on that report?

Philip Hammond: The announcement that I have made is not in any way provisional on that report. The United States will recall its surge troops during the course of this year, bringing its force level in Afghanistan back down to 68,000. The discussion that General Allen referred to is about the trajectory of US force levels beyond that figure. We have no definitive read-out of that discussion yet, and we have as yet made no definitive plan for our own draw-down beyond the end of 2012.

Thomas Docherty: Understandably, much of the focus has been on the role of the British Army, but may I press the Secretary of
	State to say a little about what role, if any, the Royal Air Force may provide post-2014 either in direct combat operations or in combat-enabling operations?

Philip Hammond: I should first say that members of all the armed forces will be involved in the Afghan national officer training academy, so there will definitely be a tri-service presence in Afghanistan after 2014 in that capacity. Beyond that, we have made no decisions about the nature or scale of any continuing support that we may provide. As I said earlier, the conversation about that will begin in Chicago, but I do not expect it to be concluded quickly.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that no UK forces will be required to backfill any areas that are left as US forces withdraw from Helmand?

Philip Hammond: Yes, I can give that assurance. The UK’s area of operations—the three districts of Nad Ali, Lashkar Gah and Nahri Sarraj in central Helmand—will remain the focus of UK operations. We do not intend to extend our area of operations, and US forces drawing down elsewhere in regional command south-west will be replaced by Afghan national security forces.

Denis MacShane: How easy it is to start a war, and how difficult to finish one. The Secretary of State has announced another 32 months of our soldiers being Taliban target practice. President Hollande, if he wins next week, will pull French troops out this year, and I believe that if President Romney is elected in November, there may be some big political rethinking in the United States. Having listened to six Secretaries of State make the same statement—we are defeating the enemy, we are making political progress—I ask the Secretary of State at least to ask our military to ensure that as few of our soldiers as possible are killed in the remaining 32 months. We do not honour the sacrifice of those who have died by adding more corpses to the funeral pile.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman is a real dyed-in-the-wool glass-half-empty man. I have not announced that we will commit our forces for another 32 months. The Prime Minister announced early last year that we would have them out of a combat role by the end of 2014. That is a good news story, as is the fact that in the interim, all the ISAF nations are focused on creating an ANSF that can take over our role and maintain security in Afghanistan.
	In the meantime, everybody in the House ought to be extremely proud of the social and economic development in central Helmand. There are significantly more schools, hospitals, clinics, bazaars, and bridges. Over the past six months, the British Army has built the biggest bridge that it has constructed since the second world war. All those things allow ordinary people in Helmand province to resume their normal life, grow their income and make mainstream Afghan society more and more attractive to those who have previously been attracted by the insurgency.

John Glen: My concern is that the current residual threat is not a reliable indicator of what precisely will happen post-2014. What assurance
	can the Secretary of State give the House that the likely change or intensification of threats from without Afghanistan in 2015 are being properly examined and acknowledged in the training being received now by the ANSF?

Philip Hammond: The strategic threats are acknowledged in, and form a core part of, ISAF’s thinking. I do not know whether my hon. Friend had a particular aspect in mind, but it is clear to us that building a sustainable and reliable relationship with Pakistan and ensuring the security of the border with Pakistan will be fundamental to the future of Afghanistan.

Jonathan Edwards: The UN assistance mission in Afghanistan recently confirmed that there were 3,000 civilian deaths in 2010, that 25% of Afghan children die before they are five and that 70% of people live in poverty. Is not that the real legacy of a decade of war?

Philip Hammond: No, it absolutely is not. The number of civilian casualties is of course a matter of extreme regret, but more than 76% of civilian casualties are caused by Taliban activity, not by ISAF or ANSF activity. Health care, literacy and poverty have all taken great strides forward since 2006. The Taliban banned girls from schools. There were no girls in school—

Paul Flynn: Yes, there were.

Philip Hammond: Virtually no girls were in school in Afghanistan in 2006, but now large numbers of girls are being educated. Schools, clinics and hospitals are springing up all over the place: 90% of the population of Helmand is within one hour’s walk of a health facility. That state of affairs could not even have been imagined in 2006. I therefore tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) not to talk the place down. It is making significant socio-economic progress.

Jason McCartney: Next week sees the funerals of my constituents Corporal Jake Hartley, Private Anthony Frampton and Private Danny Wilford of the Yorkshire Regiment. Will my right hon. Friend continue to state the progress made in Afghanistan, as he has today, and describe the orderly way in which we will withdraw from the country, so that we continue to demonstrate to their loved ones that their sacrifices have not been in vain?

Philip Hammond: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We owe it to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to conclude this operation in good order and to secure our legacy—their legacy—for the future.

Robert Smith: In paying tribute to our troops and recognising their hard work, I seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State. Although we recognise the development of the ANSF, is he getting reassurances from our ISAF partners that they understand the need to maintain resources on the ground during transition so that there can be a flexible response to the assistance role?

Philip Hammond: Yes. I attended last week the NATO Defence Ministers conference in Brussels, where speaker after speaker asserted the principles of “in together, out together” and reaffirmed their commitment to the Lisbon 2010 declaration principles. We all understand that we are now in the last stretch of this campaign, but we have to do it properly in order to secure the legacy.

Tony Baldry: Because of the need to balance the Ministry of Defence budget, a number of service personnel will be made redundant later this year, including, I suspect, a number who have recently returned from Afghanistan and a number based in my constituency with the Royal Logistic Corps. However, those people have skills that are much sought after by local employers, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that MOD officials work with the local community to set up a social enterprise to ensure that the skills of the service personnel who are made redundant are made known to local employers as swiftly as possible, and so that as many of those skills and those people can be brought into the local labour market as swiftly and speedily as possible?

Philip Hammond: I should say first of all that nobody who is on operations in Afghanistan nor anyone who is recuperating in the six-month period after returning from Afghanistan is eligible for redundancy, but my hon. Friend is right. As we balance the MOD budget and reduce the size of the Army to around 82,000, there will be a series of redundancies. Many of the people being made redundant will fortunately have skills that are of value in the civilian economy. I am not sure I agree with him on the need to create a social enterprise, but I can assure him that very robust arrangements are in place to ensure that local jobcentres are alerted in advance to the availability of the skills that those people have.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his announcement, which I am sure will go down well in my constituency, where, as hon. Members may know, 3 Commando Brigade, which served so valiantly last year out in Afghanistan, is based. What impact will today’s statement have on the reservists? Will he also explain what support his Department is giving to reservists’ families, who can on occasion feel somewhat isolated from the support given to their regular counterparts?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A significant number of reservists contribute to the campaign in Afghanistan. They tend to serve as individual augmentees—people with specific skills who are called up to reinforce other units—and as such, their families do not benefit from the group support that tends to help the families of personnel in Regular Army units. As we move forward with our plans to strengthen the reserves, we hope there will be more opportunity to deploy reserve units as formed units, which will in itself help to address the problem my hon. Friend highlights.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last but not least, I call Guy Opperman.

Guy Opperman: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be good value.
	I welcome the ongoing withdrawal and support the troops from my constituency from 39 Regiment Royal Artillery who have recently returned from a successful tour of Afghanistan. Does the Secretary of State agree that a political deal with the Taliban must be a vital precondition of continuing the social and economic progress in Afghanistan that we would all seek as we continue our withdrawal?

Philip Hammond: Yes, Taliban is a loose term. As I have already sought to suggest, a significant proportion of people who have supported the insurgency are not obviously ideologically motivated. The key challenge for the Government of Afghanistan is to negotiate with the political leaders of the Taliban and seek to reintegrate those who are supportive of the insurgency at the moment but who are not necessarily ideologically motivated—those who can be brought back on side by simply dealing with the grievances that put them off side in the first place.

Points of Order

Karen Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday in the House, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) listed meetings contained in the written witness statement of Mr Rupert Murdoch. The hon. Gentleman stated that the information had been published by the Leveson inquiry, whereas in fact it was still subject to the restriction order made by Lord Leveson on 7 December 2011. Could I ask your guidance on whether it is appropriate for Members of the House to disclose information before it has been properly disclosed by the Leveson inquiry?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order for me to deal with. It was put on the record yesterday and the hon. Lady has also put it on the record, and I think the issue will come back to the House.

Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Twice in the business statement the Leader of the House made a comparison between Mr Adam Smith, the special adviser who has just left his post, and another special adviser who left under completely different circumstances, and who was widely condemned on both sides of the House and by the public. It is unfair to cast aspersions and slurs on special advisers. The Leader of the House was not doing it in a nasty way, which I understand, but all Government Ministers are nervous and are very unhappy about this situation. Everybody says Mr Smith’s behaviour was completely straight and honest, and only reflected the wishes and orders of his master. This House should not cast any negative aspersions on that gentleman.

Lindsay Hoyle: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is up to Members and Ministers to be responsible for their words and actions in the House; it is not for the Chair to make a decision on that matter.

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Scotland Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 27 January 2011 (Scotland Bill (Programme)) and 21 June 2011 (Scotland Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Michael Fabricant.)
	Question agreed to.

Scotland Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 3
	 — 
	Supplementary and transitional provision about elections

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we may take Lords amendments 7, 8, 10 and 11.

David Mundell: Along with the redoubtable Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Stephen and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I took part in the very first meeting that led to the establishment of the Calman commission. I am pleased and proud today to be part of what I hope will be the successful conclusion of the commission’s work. The return of the Scotland Bill to this House comes after the other place has given the Bill a great deal of detailed scrutiny and consideration for many months. Indeed, in handling the Bill in the Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness was compared to Kate Adie. That comparison is not correct: he was more like General Montgomery, because he was at the forefront of the action rather than a mere commentator.
	Since the Bill was last in this House, there have been two very significant developments. The Scottish Government have changed their position from one of opposition to one of support for the Bill, including many of the amendments we will consider today. On 21 March, the Secretary of State confirmed in a written ministerial statement the terms on which agreement had been reached with the Scottish Government on the Bill, and on 18 April the Scottish Parliament passed the legislative consent motion for the Bill unanimously.
	When the Bill was last in this House, it appeared that the Scottish National party would never join the consensus that has been shared throughout both the Calman commission process and the parliamentary process on the Bill.

Stewart Hosie: I know that the Minister wants to pretend that this Bill is incredibly important, but in fact it is a rather modest Bill. If I may correct him—I know that he sometimes struggles with detail—he will remember that on Second Reading, I made it clear that we would not stand in the way of the Bill. I welcome the changes that the UK Government have made, in particular to remove some of the re-reservations, and I hope that we can now get on and pass this modest little measure.

David Mundell: I also remember the occasion on which the Scottish National party voted against the Bill, as we will detail in respect of the specific amendments that come forward. Several changes have been made to the Bill, but all of them have been on the basis of assurances provided by the Scottish Government as to how the matters will be conducted.

Anne McGuire: Except sometimes the right hand of the Scottish National party does not know what the left hand is doing. While down here it was being conciliatory, it was initially prepared to stand in the way of this extensive devolution of powers.

David Mundell: The right hon. Lady may recall that during previous consideration of the Bill, I identified London SNP as a quite different body from the Scotland-based SNP. At the same time as the SNP in London opposed the Bill, more sensible forces in the Scottish Parliament were looking to bring forward what will be a significant package of measures that will strengthen devolution by increasing the financial accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Stewart Hosie: Instead of misrepresenting me, why does not the junior Minister understand that the only reason the Scottish Parliament was able to agree the legislative consent motion was because the UK Government agreed to remove the idiotic re-reservations that they had planned; agreed to take out some of the significant and damaging things that they had intended with the Supreme Court; and, fundamentally and very sensibly, agreed proper commencement procedures, about which I will say more later?

David Mundell: I am sure that the SNP at Westminster group leader’s substitute will recognise that when this Bill was previously debated in this Parliament, the Scottish National party indicated that it had six demands that it required to be reflected on the face of the Bill before it would support it. None of those six demands is in the Bill as we debate it today or as it was debated in the Scottish Parliament, where it received unanimous support—including that of all members of the Scottish National party present.

Bob Stewart: I do not really like the Bill being called modest by the Scottish National party when the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Scottish Parliament will be able to have over £500 million of income tax in 2015-16. That is hardly modest.

David Mundell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is a significant measure which will lead to the largest transfer of fiscal powers between Westminster and Scotland in 300 years, and it should be welcomed by all parties. My hon. Friend may be aware that yesterday that the First Minister apparently told the Institute of Directors that he planned to align taxes in Scotland with the rest of the UK, so the Scottish National party may now regard the actual requirement for tax-varying powers as insignificant.
	Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve the drafting of clause 3. Section 113 of the Scotland Act 1998 makes provision about the scope of subordinate legislation powers in that Act. Clause 3(1) amends section 113 of the Scotland Act so that the supplementary powers contained in section 113 also apply to Scottish Ministers’ new power to make subordinate legislation about the administration of Scottish Parliament elections under section 12 of the 1998 Act.
	Lords amendment 1 would replace clause 3(1) with new provision having the same effect. The amendment would have the effect of restructuring section 113 and
	this would make it easier for provisions in this Bill or future legislation to provide that the supplementary powers contained in section 113 apply in relation to other powers that may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers.
	Clause 15 changes the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government. Lords amendments 7 and 8 are minor technical amendments that would ensure that all the references to “Scottish Executive” in section 44 of the Scotland Act are amended to “Scottish Government”.
	Clause 22 makes provision for there to be a Crown Estate Commissioner who knows about conditions in Scotland. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would change the name of this Commissioner from the “Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner”, to the “Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland”. I can confirm that the original title for the commissioner included in the Bill was taken from the Calman commission’s own proposals and discussed with the Crown Estate. However, it is accepted that the amendments to the commissioner’s title will properly reflect the role that the commissioner will play.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister will concede, I hope, that notwithstanding this change there is no material difference between the Bill as it was and the amendment to the title of the Crown Estate Commissioner?

David Mundell: The amendment changes the title. If the hon. Gentleman is alluding to whether the Scottish Government, in their discussions on the Bill, put forward a requirement for further devolution of the Crown Estate, I can tell him that they did not. It was not a red line for the Scottish Government.

Frank Roy: Are any costs associated with the name change?

David Mundell: As far as I am aware, no costs are associated with changing the name from that proposed in the original Bill to the revised one.

Anas Sarwar: Will the title of First Minister be changed to “Secretary of State for Rupert Murdoch”?

David Mundell: I am sure that that is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman and many others hold a view but on which the Government do not.
	The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has produced an interesting report on the future of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Obviously, the Government welcome the assiduous work carried out in preparing the report. I am surprised that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who usually plays a robust part in these deliberations, is not present. I had anticipated his having something to say about his report. However, the Government will consider it in due course. I understand that it has been debated in the Scottish Parliament, where the devolution of Crown Estate activities directly to local communities found support, at least among opposition parties there.
	On that basis, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.

William Bain: As we begin debating the Lords amendments, I hope the House will consider it appropriate for the Opposition to mark the significance of what is likely to be our final consideration of the Scotland Bill. If it receives Royal Assent in the coming days, the Bill will represent the largest devolution of financial powers to Scotland in 300 years; will make decisions on spending and taxation more transparently accountable to the Scottish Parliament than at any time since 1999; and create new borrowing powers with the potential to boost economic growth significantly.
	This enhancement of devolution is the culmination of a four-year process of cross-party and cross-societal constitutional reform through the Calman commission, which was established by Wendy Alexander and other pro-devolution party leaders in Scotland. Its outcome was accepted in a White Paper by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy); was assisted by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) in various capacities; and has been implemented with cross-party support by the coalition Government.
	It is also welcome that the Scottish Government have finally indicated their assent, if not warm-hearted approval, for the Bill, after a significantly longer and more circuitous journey to reach that position than that undergone by Scotland’s other political parties.

Michael Moore: I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, his colleague the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and those from all parties in the House and elsewhere who have helped to make this Bill what it is today. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) will agree that this is a good model for how parties should work together to produce consensus and plan, and then devolve significant powers to Scotland.

William Bain: I heartily agree with the Secretary of State.
	The Bill is good for democracy in decentralising certain financial powers, and good for the Scottish economy in devolving the right levers to promote further growth.

Frank Roy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in effect, this really is devo-max?

William Bain: It is intriguing. We have several descriptions: “indy-lite”, “devo-plus”, “devo-max”. Various formulations for additional powers have been put out for public discussion. I think this is “devo-positive”. It will give the Scottish Parliament additional democratic legitimacy by enabling it to raise about 35% of what it spends—far more than at present—but without the race to the bottom with other countries or parts of the United Kingdom on tax rates, including corporate tax rates, which would be very damaging for growth.

Ian Murray: Lots of adjectives have been attached to the word “devo” with regards to the debate about the constitutional settlement in Scotland.
	Given that the Scottish National party supported it, then did not support it, then supported it again, then did not support it, then supported it again, could this be “devo-hokey cokey”?

William Bain: That is a very interesting point put with typical style by my hon. Friend.
	As a party that first supported devolution more than a century ago, we are pleased to see the Scottish Parliament strengthened by the Bill’s progress through the House and the other place.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I was about to leave this point, but I will give way.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman’s introductory remarks are interesting. Can we take it, given that he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that the position of the British Labour party is no devolution of corporation tax to Scotland, under any circumstances, even if the evidence tells us that the power it might give would be incredibly beneficial for jobs and working people?

William Bain: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I might be able to help. I know that Mr Bain will come straight back to the amendments and that we will not drift any further.

William Bain: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make that intervention again when we discuss the implementation of tax powers, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might view it in order for me to address it then.
	On the specific amendments, we support the provisions that make clearer the circumstances and criteria for Scottish Ministers to make orders in relation to the conduct of Scottish parliamentary elections. Those powers will be largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament under clause 3. We also agree with amendments 7 and 8, which resolve any remaining drafting ambiguities in relation to the change in the legal name of the Scottish Executive to “the Scottish Government” in clause 15. We also have no difficulty with amendments 10 and 11, which amend clause 22 to alter the Crown Estate commissioner’s name to
	“Crown Estate Commissioner with special responsibility for Scotland”
	to denote the special status that one of the Crown Estate commissioners will have, should the Bill become law.
	In short, then, the Opposition support the amendments.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mr Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am surprised to be called so early. [Laughter.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to call someone else, I can do, but I am sure he is happy to continue.

Bob Stewart: Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in total shock. I fell over.
	I speak as someone who sounds like a Sassenach, but my Scottish father joined the Royal Air Force and was thereafter posted all over the world. Many members of my family still live in Scotland. My Aunt Eileen lives in Largs and my cousin teaches Gaelic in the Outer Hebrides. I say that to demonstrate that what happens in Scotland matters to a great number of us in the House. Many of my colleagues, such as my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), have Scottish ancestry going back—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know, Mr Stewart, that you will come to the amendments immediately, rather than touring Scotland. It is interesting to hear where your relatives live, and on another day I would welcome that information, but today I want to hear your views on the amendments.

Bob Stewart: All the amendments are very acceptable to me and to the other Stewarts in the House.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will agree that it is relevant to say that the amendment matters not only to people living in Scotland but to people in the whole of the United Kingdom, because our country operates as one. I am sure that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who was educated at the excellent Chigwell school in Epping Forest, will be warmly welcomed by the Epping Forest Scottish Society, which shares his views on this matter.

Lindsay Hoyle: The southern Scottish seat of Epping Forest has been mentioned, but it is not relevant to this group of amendments. Let us now get back to the amendments.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The amendments will certainly be welcomed by the Stewart Society, which I shall be speaking to in two weeks’ time.
	It is absolutely right that Members of the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for raising more money, and the amendments will help them to do that. I am also pleased that MSPs will be more accountable to the Scottish people. I fully support, as do most people in this House, the fact that the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for health, education, transport and the police. I am very pleased with the amendments.

Frank Roy: Would it not be a great shame if all these amendments were to fall because, for some bizarre reason, the people of Scotland decided to separate from the United Kingdom?

Bob Stewart: It would be horrific if that were to happen. The Opposition and the Conservatives are all Unionists in this regard. It would be a disaster if there were any kind of separation of our great nation. Scotland is much more powerful through being connected with the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
	I am delighted to end my speech here. My jokes have been cut short by the unkindness of the Deputy Speaker, who will not allow me—

Hon. Members: Ooh!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is immediately going to withdraw that remark.

Bob Stewart: I am not sure that I will—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, I certainly will withdraw it!

Lindsay Hoyle: I am being very generous to the hon. Gentleman, and I am giving him that chance.

Bob Stewart: With crawlingness, I withdraw my remark. I shall sit down at this point.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are some benefits from doing so.

Pete Wishart: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and it is a pity that we did not get to hear the rest of his speech. SNP Members were particularly looking forward to the tour de force that his tour around Scotland would have provided. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to hear it another day.
	We in the Scottish National party welcome the Lords amendments. Anything that gives more power to the Scottish Parliament will be welcome to us. At this, the last moment of the last day of the last stage of the Scotland Bill, I just want to say: what a process we have had! There are many things we could say about the Bill, but we could never describe it as being particularly exciting. It has never had much press attention in the course of the past few months. We could describe it as unambitious, uneventful or lacking the powers to grow the economy, but the main thing about the Bill is that it is so “minority Government”. It is from another day, another era—it is from the last gasp of a Unionist majority in the Scottish Parliament. It is from a day that has passed.

Eleanor Laing: I fail to understand how the hon. Gentleman can find it unexciting or irrelevant that Members of the Scottish Parliament are being made more accountable to the people of Scotland. That is what devolution and increasing democracy are all about. I would have thought that he would be excited by that.

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. As always in these debates, she makes a colourful presence and puts her case passionately and well. I must say, however, that the Bill has been overtaken by events. Things have happened over the past year, and the one big thing that happened was the election of a majority SNP Government. Everything has changed because of that.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not more positive in welcoming the Bill, but his support in the voting Lobby is obviously what matters. He mentions the things that have happened over the past year. In the past day, we have heard the amazing announcement by the First Minister that he is in favour of having the same income tax levels even if Scotland were to be given independence. Is it not amazing that a
	party that has been struggling for independence for 90 years is now telling us that, if Scotland were to become independent, nothing much would change?

Pete Wishart: What the Scottish people are hearing is a compelling case for Scottish independence, and the question will be put to them in a couple of years. The overwhelming majority of them will endorse and support it. We look forward to having that debate over the next couple of years, because we are absolutely confident that we will secure that overwhelming majority.

Frank Roy: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what made the Bill a bad Bill, and what it is that now makes it a good Bill?

Pete Wishart: To be fair, this is a much better Bill now than it was a year ago. All the damaging economic powers that would have cost Scotland so much have gone. I am also glad that the UK Government have agreed with the Scottish Government on commencement powers, so that we will no longer be exposed to the damaging measure that would have had a massive and dramatic impact on Scotland.

David Mundell: rose—

Margaret Curran: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have a choice between the two Front Benches. I will give way to the Minister first.

David Mundell: We would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. The UK Government have not agreed with the Scottish Government on dual commencement. What we have said is that it is desirable and that we will work with the Scottish Government to achieve it, but it has not been agreed on at this stage. I say this just so that right hon. and hon. Members are not misled.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. It is good that he agrees with the Scottish Government that joint commencement is a good idea and I welcome the fact that there will be a veto for the Scottish Parliament in regard to the commencement of potentially damaging tax powers.
	The Bill does not meet the aspirations of the Scottish people. It does not meet the aspirations of the anti-independence parties either. They have all moved on as well, and decided that these provisions are not enough. The Conservative-led Unionist alliance and what accounts for their think-tanks are all now considering the next stages of devolution as they move forward. They, as well as the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, have passed the Bill by. The Bill is finished, it is dead, it is something that belongs to another day and another era.

David Mowat: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say a few moments ago that this version of the Bill would save the Scottish Government and the Scottish people many billions, compared with the version that we discussed a year ago. Will he tell the House which amendments that observation pertains to, and what it was that he was talking about?

Pete Wishart: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard my exchange with the Minister, but this is to do with commencement powers. The agreement of the Scottish Parliament will now have to be sought before any tax-changing powers are brought in, which is right and appropriate. That will ensure that we do not go down any route that could damage the Scottish economy or the way in which the Scottish Parliament is funded.
	I can see that you are keen for me to speak to the Lords amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker. We welcome the amendments. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) is not here, but he will at last be able to refer to the Scottish Government as, well, a Government. The days of the Executive—and the unambitious Executives of the past—are finally at an end. The term “Executive” refers to boardrooms and golf clubs. It is Governments who run Scotland. As long as we are in charge, it is a Government, it will continue to be a Government and it will have the powers of a Government.

Frank Roy: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party voted for the Scotland Act 1998, which introduced the Scottish Executive?

Pete Wishart: One of the first things we did when we came into government, back in 2007, was to ensure that we were a Scottish Government. If it looks like a Government, walks like a Government and quacks like a Government, it is a Government. We will continue to be that Government. The days of the unambitious Labour-Liberal Executive have now gone, and thank goodness for that.
	We welcome the amendments, and I look forward to discussing the others and finding out why the Labour party has changed its mind on—

Ian Murray: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have just about finished my speech, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have had enough of Labour Members’ interventions, as they all tend to be on the same theme, but I thank him for his interest.
	We will support the Lords amendments. It is in Scotland’s interests that the powers should be transferred, and we will continue to support the rest of the amendments.

Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, do you wish to speak—[ Interruption. ] I am sorry; I call Anne McGuire.

Anne McGuire: I appreciate I am a blushing violet sitting here and you obviously did not quite see me, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are one of the few men who could say that they did not see me—even on this matter, but never mind!
	I want to deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on this group of miscellaneous amendments. I think his comments are indicative of the fact that it is does not matter how much devolution is given to Scotland or is agreed with the people of Scotland, it is never enough for a party that has only one ambition in this life, which is to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a party will continue to throw around the sort of parliamentary insults that the hon. Gentleman
	managed to put into his short contribution—such as “unambitious”. Frankly, it is not unambitious to provide the greatest transfer of powers to the Scottish people, and to give not just fiscal autonomy, which is a camouflage for independence, but fiscal responsibility to the Scottish Parliament.
	I can see that you are getting agitated, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I may not be addressing the amendments, so let me deal with amendment 7, which is about health professionals. I have some concern about it. Although there is significant devolution of power, there is still cross-border traffic when it comes to health professionals. It was rational to say that this should have been a reserved power. However, it was yesterday’s statement by the First Minister that convinced me that this was probably the right way to go. We are now going to have not only the same Queen, the same currency and the same NATO, but, I hope, the same level of regulatory provision for health professionals, too.
	I welcome the amendment, but I ask the Minister to convince me that there will be enough communication and consideration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that we keep in sync health professional regulation between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, so that people do not feel that they will get a different level of professionalism from the people they need to trust for their medical care according to whether they live north or south of the border.

Ian Murray: My right hon. Friend is creating an important narrative for the link between the national health services in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does she agree that that probably explains how the Scottish National party ended up voting on the Health and Social Care Bill—because of the interlinked nature of the NHS between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The amendment refers only to leaving something out, which is all we are effectively debating. I have allowed some latitude, but I have to watch that we do not stray too far away from the amendment. I understand that the provisions affect Scotland and that hon. Members want to open up the debate, but we must try to stick to the amendments.

Anne McGuire: I take your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	If the amendment is accepted—

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: No, I do not think I will.

Pete Wishart: I gave way to them!

Anne McGuire: I think that Mr Deputy Speaker wants us to move the business on, and I do not wish to trespass further on his charity.
	I want a reassurance that there will be full discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that we have a framework that will regulate health professionals across the United Kingdom, albeit that the Scottish Government will have responsibility.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Yesterday afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:
	“Why was the special adviser the nominated person in the Department? If this was so important, as the Secretary of State is saying, why was his special adviser the nominated person?”
	The Secretary of State replied:
	“His role was agreed by the permanent secretary”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 963.]
	This morning, at the Public Accounts Committee, the permanent secretary was asked on 10 occasions whether he had actually approved that decision, as the Secretary of State suggested to the House yesterday, and he point blank refused to say. The reason this is a point of order is that if we were to apply for a Standing Order No. 24 debate on this very serious issue of whether the Secretary of State might have inadvertently or advertently misled the House, we would have to have the first debate on Monday and the second on Tuesday. Can you confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the House would not be able to prorogue on Tuesday in that eventuality?

Lindsay Hoyle: First, I cannot judge something that has not happened. We do not know whether what the hon. Member mentions will be received on Monday. The decision will obviously be taken when such a request has been received; only then could it be decided upon. It would be wrong for me to rule on something hypothetical.

Anne McGuire: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to apologise to the House. As I was speaking, I was looking at amendment 7 from the Lords rather than our amendment 7. I hope that my contribution will be taken in the context of the right amendment.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that everything is possible.

David Mundell: I shall make a few points on the issues pertaining to this group of amendments. I can assure the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) that we on the Government Benches always listen to her wise counsel. I will deal with the specific points she raised, which are important—regardless of when or where they are raised.
	As the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), let me be clear about the position on joint commencement. The Scottish Government sought a specific provision for joint commencement in this Bill. The request was refused, as it was unworkable—like so many proposals advanced either by the SNP in London or the Scottish Government. Instead, we focused on delivering this Bill. At last, that objective is shared by the Scottish Government.
	Of course we want to achieve circumstances in which joint commencement can take place. I shall quote from a letter sent by the Secretary of State on 20 March to Bruce Crawford and John Swinney:
	“Consistent with the principle of consent, our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant, to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new fiscal powers.”
	That is the Government’s position.
	Let me respond to a point made by hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). He seemed to suggest that evidence had been produced to support the Scottish Government’s and indeed the Scottish National party’s suggestion that corporation tax should be devolved. Again, I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that actual evidence had been produced to support that proposition. Indeed, it was not.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister’s memory is appalling. I intervened on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to ask the Labour party’s position on corporation tax. I said no such thing about evidence being provided to the UK Government. I am sure Hansard will bear that out. If, however, the Minister wants to carry on and embarrass himself further, I will be delighted to listen.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I would obviously not allow the Opposition Front-Bench team to respond. I am sure that, as we go through the further provisions, everyone will be able to discuss the issues about taxation that they wish to raise.

David Mundell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall not use the same tone as the hon. Gentleman, although I think his remarks confirmed that no evidence had been produced at all or in any form to support the proposition of devolving corporation tax. That is why it is not being devolved in this Bill and is not the subject of these or any other amendments brought forward in the House of Lords. I support the amendment on that basis.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Partial suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by Supreme Court

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we may take Lords amendments 5, 6, 17, 18 and 26.

David Mundell: As I have already explained, on 21 March the Government announced a package of measures in the Bill, and supporting non-legislative arrangements, to ensure that the Bill would operate in a fair and sustainable way to benefit Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That announcement followed productive discussions with the Scottish Government.
	I hope that it does not prove career-limiting for him if I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy in the Scottish Government, who has worked closely with me and with the Secretary of State on the dialogue that has been taking place about the Bill. Mr Crawford and his officials have always engaged constructively in discussions on the Bill, and, even on occasions when we have not agreed, we have always conducted those discussions in an orderly and proper fashion. I am most grateful to Mr Crawford for the way in which he dealt with the legislative consent motion in
	the Scottish Parliament, securing a unanimous outcome. There was no dissent from any member of the Scottish National party.
	Following the agreement announced on 21 March, changes were made to both the finance and non-finance provisions in the Bill. Since its introduction in November 2010, it has been subjected to detailed scrutiny in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments. In Westminster, it has passed successfully through its Commons and Lords stages, and has returned to the Commons today for further consideration. In Holyrood, not one but two Scotland Bill Committees have taken evidence and reported to the Scottish Parliament. I pay tribute to my colleague David McLetchie MSP, who experienced the pleasure of serving on both those Committees. I think that his expertise could rightly be said to be beyond that of Members of this House and the other place, in that he has a true understanding of the Bill and all its ramifications. I also pay tribute to the other MSPs who served on both Committees for their work in dealing with the reports, and subsequently passing the legislative consent motion tabled by the Scottish Government in favour of the Bill.
	We have gone further than ever before in working with parties in Scotland and across the United Kingdom to deliver a Bill built on cross-party consensus. We have carefully considered and, when appropriate—that is, when a case based on evidence has been properly made—taken on board the views of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We are pleased that we have reached agreement and can make progress with the Bill.
	The package of measures announced on 21 March meets the tests that the Government set for changes in the Bill package. They are based on evidence, maintain the cross-party consensus that supports the Bill, and will benefit Scotland without detriment to the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments in this group are part of those changes. Lords amendments 2, 5, 6, 17 and 26 would remove clause 7, clause 12, schedule 2, clause 13 and clause 26.
	Lords amendment 2 would remove clause 7. As it stands, section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows for only a Bill, rather than a single provision of a Bill, in the Scottish Parliament to be referred to the Supreme Court in its entirety on questions of legislative competence. That means that implementation of the whole Bill would be delayed if the matter were referred to the Supreme Court pending a decision of that court. The Government’s intention in pursuing the limited reference procedure contained in clause 7 was to prevent unnecessary delays on Bills the majority of whose provisions were considered to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	The Scottish Government expressed the fear that the clause could have the potential to introduce unintended consequences and delay to the enactment of legislation in the Scottish Parliament. As a result of our discussions with the Scottish Government, we agreed that the clause could be removed. The Scottish Government accept that that will mean that in future, as at present, only a full Act of the Scottish Parliament can be referred to the Supreme Court, even if only a single provision raises competence issues. I should make clear that the provision in the original Bill was intended to be helpful to the Scottish Government. However, they decided that they did not want that helpful measure to be included, and as a result we agreed to remove it.
	Lords amendments 5 and 26 would remove the clause on insolvency and the related provision in schedule 2. Clause 12 would return exclusive legislative competence to the UK Parliament in relation to all aspects of the winding up of business associations. It is intended to ensure that the rules on corporate insolvency are consistent on both sides of the border. The UK Government continue to believe that it is important to take into account the view of stakeholders that, when appropriate, Scottish insolvency procedures should be in step with those in the rest of the UK. Our discussions with the Scottish Government have provided us with assurances that we can address those concerns without amending the devolution settlement in this respect.
	Let me make clear to Scottish National party Members that the UK Government have removed the clause on the understanding that the Scottish Government will consider the modernisation measures for the devolved areas of winding up in Scotland that were introduced into the reserved insolvency procedures in 2009 and 2010, and have provided assurances that future changes made by the UK Parliament or Ministers in that area will be considered in a timely fashion by the Scottish Government in their area of competence.
	Lords amendment 6 seeks to remove clause 13. The clause deals with the regulation of health professionals, to which the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) has already alluded. Since Royal Assent to the Scotland Act 1998, the regulation of any health professionals not regulated by the legislation listed in schedule 5 has fallen within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, but although the Scottish Parliament has had the power to introduce separate legislation in respect of the regulation of health professionals, it has chosen not to do so.
	During our discussions with the Scottish Government, they raised some concerns about the clause. They pointed out that the delivery of health care is, on the whole, devolved to Scotland. However, they gave us clear assurances that they would work closely with us to ensure that consistent regulatory regimes apply to all health professionals. I assure the right hon. Member for Stirling that it is on the basis of those assurances that the UK Government are content to continue to develop policy in relation to the regulation of health professionals with the Scottish Government.

Frank Roy: Does this not prove that some things should be done on a UK-wide basis rather than on the basis of a separate Scotland?

David Mundell: During consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons and by the Committees of the Scottish Parliament, I was not aware of a single piece of evidence suggesting that the regulation of health professionals would benefit from not being carried out on a UK-wide basis. In fact, it has been pointed out that health professionals are a relatively mobile group who may want to move to and from jobs in Scotland and England, and who would therefore not benefit from separate regulation.

Frank Roy: Presumably the SNP agrees with that.

David Mundell: As I said earlier, the Scottish Government have given assurances that although there will not be a relevant clause in the Bill, they will work with the UK
	Government to ensure that there is a uniform approach to the regulation of health professionals. I think that those remarks are consistent with the First Minister’s statement yesterday that he intended to align taxes in Scotland with those in the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland became independent. In fact, if Scotland became independent, there would be no difference on virtually any matter.
	Lords amendment 17 would remove clause 27. The Government included that clause to provide UK Ministers, concurrently with Scottish Ministers, with a power to implement international obligations in devolved areas. That would have allowed UK Ministers to implement international obligations on a UK basis, where it would be more convenient to do so. Both Governments acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all of the UK’s international obligations are fully implemented across the UK in a timely fashion. The UK Government are willing to remove this clause on the understanding that Scottish Ministers will ensure that any international obligations that fall within their responsibility are implemented on time. We have made clear to Scottish Ministers that the Government would be prepared to use their existing powers of direction under section 58(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 if we were to have concerns about the implementation of international obligations within the remit of Scottish Ministers.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government have not conceded on the principle of re-reservation, as the Scottish National party suggested during our earlier debates on this Bill. The Bill does not make devolution a one-way street. Clause 14 re-reserves the regulation of activities in Antarctica.

Pete Wishart: If it is not a one-way street, which powers are now coming back to this House apart from those on Antarctica?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman forgets that he and his colleagues moved an amendment to remove the clause re-reserving activities in Antarctica. They were defeated in this House, and the Scottish Government have accepted that the regulation of activities in Antarctica should be re-reserved. I fail to understand the SNP negotiating position, because it appears that the regulation of dental hygienists—important though that is, as the right hon. Member for Stirling said—cannot be re-reserved, yet matters such as the administration of the Crown Estate, corporation tax, excise duties and further broadcasting powers were not red lines for the SNP in its discussions on this Bill.

Pete Wishart: To ensure that the Minister does not mischaracterise the approach of the Scottish Government, let me state that we are not for any re-reservations of powers now. That is why the Bill is now more acceptable to the SNP and the Scottish Government.

David Mundell: Again, I would not want the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. The regulation of activities in Antarctica are re-reserved to this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: And I know that no Member would mislead this House.

David Mundell: This re-reservation—which some Members on the Opposition Benches sought to remove at an earlier stage—is a sensible measure.
	We have removed provisions from the Bill where we have been given necessary assurances that their effect will be achieved by other means, or where we now take the view that we can sufficiently rely on existing powers.
	Finally, let me turn to the proposed new clause under Lords amendment 18. Its purpose is to provide information to both Houses in the UK Parliament on the implementation and operation of the financial powers in this Bill. It requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish an annual report to both Houses of Parliament within one year of the Scotland Bill becoming an Act and until a year after the tax and borrowing powers are fully transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The last report is therefore expected to be published in 2020. The Secretary of State will send a copy of his report to Scottish Ministers, who will lay a copy of it before the Scottish Parliament. The proposed new clause also requires Scottish Ministers to lay a report of the same title to the Scottish Parliament on an annual basis and to provide a copy to lay before both Houses of the UK Parliament.
	This amendment was proposed by the Government during discussions with the Scottish Government. The new provision will ensure that there is a transparent mechanism of reporting to both Parliaments on implementation. Passing the Bill is just one part of the process to ensure that these new powers are delivered and the accountability and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament are increased. The important implementation work that both Governments need to undertake to ensure that the financial measures operate successfully will now begin in earnest. This amendment will ensure that both Parliaments are kept properly informed of progress on implementation by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Government.
	The Government intend for these reports to be comprehensive and accessible to all. They must cover all aspects of implementing the Scotland Bill financial package, legislative and non-legislative. The proposed new clause sets out the areas that each report must address. They are as follows: an update on all aspects of progress in implementing the powers in the Bill and its Command Paper since the previous report; details of the future steps towards implementation that all parties must take; an assessment of the operation of the powers; an assessment of the operation of powers to devolve taxes to the Scottish Parliament or changes to the powers of the Scottish Ministers to borrow, or any other changes to the finance provisions in the Bill; the effect of transferring tax powers on the Scottish block grant; and any other matters concerning sources of revenue to the Scottish Government.
	I believe the amendments in this group will help ensure that the Bill delivers the most significant transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and I beg to move that the House agrees to them.

William Bain: This group of amendments is a result of agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments on the legislative consent motion passed last week by the Scottish Parliament, giving its assent to the transfer of powers prospectively made by the Bill.
	Lords amendment 2 would remove clause 7, which creates new arrangements for the partial suspension of a Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament, subject to a reference made by the Advocate-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Government said that that could delay the overall implementation of affected Bills, and have thus invited this House to consider the merits of the existing arrangements. We consider that the existing judicial processes have worked sufficiently well in ensuring that the Scottish Parliament legislates within its powers, and that any incompatibilities found to arise by the Supreme Court in Bills pre-Assent or Acts post-Assent can be dealt with by amending legislation at Holyrood. We are therefore minded to accept the amendment.
	Lords amendment 5 would remove clause 12, which re-reserves to the UK Parliament certain aspects of insolvency law in Scotland—on the winding-up of companies, the effect on diligence, prior transactions and the insolvency of social landlords. Personal insolvency and receiverships remain entirely devolved to Holyrood, and administrations and company voluntary agreements remain a responsibility of this Parliament as they affect Scotland. Lords amendment 26 would remove schedule 2, which makes the consequential changes to insolvency law required if clause 12 remains part of the Bill.
	Lords amendment 6 would remove clause 13, which re-reserves the regulation of the medical professions in Scotland to the UK Parliament. On Lords amendments 5 and 6, we note that the Scottish Parliament indicates in its legislative consent motion that it will aim to make regulation in both matters in a way that is consistent with regulation across the United Kingdom. Given that commitment, we see no reason to oppose either amendment.
	Lords amendment 17 would remove clause 27, which permits Ministers in the UK Government to make a single order in relation to the implementation of international obligations applicable across the United Kingdom, whether they extend into devolved competences or not. A similar approach already exists in relation to EU obligations. The Scottish Government have made commitments on the continued implementation of non-EU international obligations. Given that, and given also the power of direction available to the UK Government in such matters under section 58 of the 1998 Act, we would not oppose Lords amendment 17.
	Lords amendment 18 would add, after clause 37, a significant new clause creating a new obligation on both the UK and Scottish Governments to make an annual report to their respective Parliaments on the progress made toward implementing the new tax and borrowing powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament by the Bill. We are aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility has already begun to make estimates of Scottish revenues from the tax responsibilities to be devolved, and has published, alongside its economic and fiscal outlook, estimates for this fiscal year and each successive year. In particular, it estimates revenues from the prospective Scottish rate of income tax at £4.4 billion this financial year, rising to £5.6 billion by 2016-17; revenues from stamp duty land tax at £328 million this financial year, rising to £536 million by 2016-17; and revenues from landfill tax at £123 million this financial year, rising to £157 million by 2016-17.

Fiona O'Donnell: The money derived from the landfill tax is currently ring-fenced in the UK, bringing back direct environmental benefits to communities. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Scottish Government will continue that approach?

William Bain: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point, because although we hear demands for powers made by certain parties, no purpose is ever given for the devolution of those powers. It is a staggering omission that we know absolutely nothing about the future of stamp duty land tax, given that it is due to be devolved to Holyrood in just a few short years. We have heard about the lack of evidence provided for the devolution of other taxes, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies setting out convincing evidence in its “Green Budget” a few months ago that devolving corporation tax would involve a race to the bottom and be a very risky endeavour indeed.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way again. Is it not the case that the setting of corporation tax was devolved to Northern Ireland simply to allow it to equalise its rate with the rate on the other side of the land border to the south? Indeed, the First Minister of Scotland’s speech at the Institute of Directors yesterday, in which he said that he would use the taxation powers only to equalise the rates, highlights why corporation tax should not be devolved to Scotland.

William Bain: The other implication of devolving corporation tax for it to be reduced to the levels that apply in the Republic of Ireland is that £2.6 billion would be lost from the Scottish block as a result. That would not be in the interests of economic growth, services, health or education in Scotland. As PricewaterhouseCoopers said in its report to Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee on the Bill, the cut in corporation tax was only the 16th or 17th highest reason for companies investing in the Republic of Ireland, while most of the investment in the Republic of Ireland occurred when corporation taxes were not at the reduced level. The case for devolving corporation tax has therefore not been made. As we have seen in the past few days, with confusion over income tax policy and no rule on what debt levels a separate Scottish state would have, the First Minister’s plans for separation seem to be dissolving into yet another omnishambles.

Stewart Hosie: As we are debating this matter, can we have confirmation that the British Labour party is now completely opposed to the devolution of corporation tax to Scotland, even if the evidence was that it would benefit Scotland through economic growth and jobs for ordinary working people? Is that correct?

William Bain: Let me, as a member of the Scottish Labour party, tell a member of the London Scottish National party that our commission will look at the evidence on all fiscal matters. However, strong evidence has already been presented that goes against the devolution of corporation tax. No convincing evidence has been presented by either the Scottish Government or the Scottish National party to show how simply basing a policy on corporation tax would produce additional jobs and growth.

Eleanor Laing: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about this complicated subject. He quoted the First Minister of Scotland as saying that he would only equalise taxation. I know the hon. Gentleman cannot answer for the SNP, but if the past is anything to go by, Labour always raises taxes. Can he therefore confirm that, should Scotland separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, he could give no undertaking that a future Labour Government in Scotland might not stick by the current First Minister’s—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The length of the hon. Lady’s intervention is stretching even my patience a little. We are not speculating about such matters; we are only discussing an amendment at this stage.

William Bain: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady tempts me to make future tax policy. However, the point she makes is that corporation tax is better levied and raised at UK level, and that is what we shall be defending in the debates on these amendments and the debates in the coming months.
	The agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government provides that borrowing limits will be reviewed regularly, ahead of UK spending reviews by the Joint Exchequer Committee, and a consultation will be initiated on the Scottish Government being able to issue bonds. The annual reports will allow Members of this House and the Scottish Parliament both to scrutinise the detailed arrangements made by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Scottish Government in the run-up to implementation and the first five years following the commencement of operation of the new fiscal powers, and to permit any remaining issues—such as the precise interpretation of the definition of a Scottish taxpayer, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) in Committee—to be resolved before the tax powers become active in April 2015. It is also our view that the reports will provide an opportunity to scrutinise arrangements made at Holyrood on the workings or replacement of stamp duty land tax. We welcome the new commitments on giving consideration to bond issuance by the Scottish Government, and the additional capacity that such borrowing powers will provide to the Scottish Government to make capital and infrastructure investments, which are vital for Scotland’s economic competitiveness.
	The requirement to make annual reports will also show the strength of the financial powers being devolved by the Bill. The Scottish Consolidated Fund will have sufficient balance to ensure cash flow on the devolution of these new tax powers and to manage any excessive in-year volatility of tax receipts. It will also meet differences between forecast and out-turn receipts on income tax allocated to the Scottish Government at the beginning of the relevant fiscal year.

Frank Roy: Presumably the safeguards that my hon. Friend just spoke about will not be there if Scotland separates from the United Kingdom. Is that the case?

William Bain: Indeed, one of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom is that we enjoy a fiscal union in which there are significant fiscal transfers from the UK level to Scotland. The evidence published in January 2010
	by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, indicated that in the 20 years running up to 2008, fiscal transfers of about £75 billion had taken place. That is the Union dividend; that is the benefit that Scotland has obtained from remaining part of the United Kingdom, and we will defend that in the debates in the coming months.
	These powers to meet any differences between forecasts and actual receipts of income tax rise to a cumulative limit of £500 million and permit an annual increase in capital investment of up to £230 million per year, subject to a cumulative limit of £2.2 billion from the national loans fund, the Public Works Loans Board or commercial banks.
	We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have not persisted with their demands on the devolution in the Bill of corporation tax or excise duty, which would not be in the interests of the people of Scotland at this time. Finally, may I say that we offer our support for this amendment and the others in this group?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group. I will speak specifically to Lords amendment 18, but before I do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope it is in order for me, having taken part in all the Bill’s proceedings in the House, to place on the record how much I welcome the progress that has been made, both here and in the Scottish Parliament; I particularly welcome the unanimous approval given by the Scottish Parliament on 18 April. I believe that the Bill as a whole embodies sensible evolutionary progress on devolution. It represents a measured and calm approach, which takes forward at a sensible pace the whole devolutionary process, and it avoids some of the risk and uncertainty that would be involved in more extreme constitutional change that some Opposition parties want.
	On Lords amendment 18, the publication of an annual statement of progress on the transfer of fiscal powers is a welcome and sensible move. I do not think we should underestimate the scale of change that will occur when capital borrowing powers are devolved, when income tax powers are devolved, and when stamp duty and the other measures are passed down. A huge sum of money is involved and, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, it will mean that the Scottish Parliament is responsible for raising more than one third of its spending. When coupled with the actual amount of money involved, the process of disentangling what has been a unitary tax system should not be underestimated.

John Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that producing such a report will bring greater openness and transparency to the financial affairs of the Scottish Parliament, and that it will also allow greater scrutiny of issues relating to the Barnett formula?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, as the essence of the Bill is that it creates additional transparency and provides for democratic scrutiny of the decisions made by the Scottish Parliament. That is important not only in Scotland, but in England. I am sure that constituents write to him to complain about some of what they see as the largesse given to Scotland.
	Some of what is reported to us is not accurate—the media tend to whip up a storm about the bounty that is provided to Scotland. Some of what is said may be true, but greater transparency will be healthy for democracy and it will remove some of the myths from the debate. I think that this measure will be good for the Scottish Parliament, for devolution and for the Union.

Pete Wishart: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with keen interest and I very much approve of the tone of his remarks. Will he ensure that when nonsensical claims are made about Scotland having this “largesse”, as he describes it, he will deal with them all in the same way as he just has?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I always try to be reasonable and measured in my comments. These issues are important and I have long argued—I will not repeat the arguments that I have made in other debates, as I think you would quickly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—that there is a great deal of confusion about the fiscal relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that this measure will give extra clarity. Some of the claims are justified; others are not. I shall not be tempted down the path of identifying which are and which are not, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) says, it is important to have that scrutiny so that we can keep tabs on this very complex change. The last thing our economy needs in these difficult economic times is additional uncertainty about changes that are being rushed through that might provide uncertain trading conditions for companies. The proposed process is measured, calm and sensible.
	I am glad that some of the other demands for fiscal transfers have been resisted at this stage. We have talked about corporation tax and I will not re-enter that debate. The demands made by the Scottish National party initially included the transfer of excise duties, but even they now realise the complexity that that would involve, thanks to the fact that such an august body as the Scotch Whisky Association—a very fine body—pointed out that different alcohol duties north and south of the border would require the introduction of some sort of tax border policing to ensure that there was no abuse of the system. I am glad that that demand has been dropped.
	As my hon. Friend says, the additional transparency will be good for our constituents. The publication of the annual reports will also be helpful in relation to another sensible change that has been made during the progress of this Bill, which is the proposed adjustment to the annual block grant. Initially, I think there was to be a one-off assessment of what change should be made to the block grant as a result of the fiscal changes. That has now been amended to be an annual assessment of what I think is known as the Holtham approach, which has been considered for funding for the Welsh Assembly. Having that annual check on a very complex and dynamic fiscal situation will be sensible. I recall that similar changes were made to the calculation of the Barnett formula in the 1990s when the initial formula, which had been set in stone since it was first introduced in the late 1970s, had resulted in some disparities and anomalies as a result of changing population levels. That has since been adjusted to an annual change.

David Mowat: As my hon. Friend says, there a change has been made at the last moment to what is called the no-detriment principle, which was indeed set out in the Holtham report, produced in July 2010. Does he concede that the majority of the Holtham report focused on a needs-based funding formula, and that we are not implementing that at this time?

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention but I do not think that you would be terribly enamoured of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I widened the debate into a discussion of the Barnett formula and fiscal matters more generally. My hon. Friend is right, however, that that is not part of the Bill. It is a subject to which I think we will return on another day.
	In conclusion, I welcome Lords amendment 18, which would make a sensible change to the Bill. I welcome the Bill as a whole, as it is a sensible change and a sensible evolution of the devolutionary process, and I think that it will be welcomed both north and south of the border.

Stewart Hosie: I want to say only a few words about this group of amendments. They are very welcome, particularly the scratching out of some of the re-reservations. We tabled amendments, of course, to remove the re-reservation of insolvency and health professional regulation matters in a previous stage, but the Government rejected them at that point, as did the British Labour party. I am delighted that there is now unanimity that those re-reservations should be removed.

David Mundell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he also tabled an amendment at an earlier stage to remove the re-reservation of Antarctica and that the re-reservation of Antarctica remains in the Bill?

Stewart Hosie: Indeed it does. We can safely say that we have no territorial claims on Antarctica. This is a Scotland Bill, and the re-reservation removal is sensible.
	Lords amendment 18 deals with reports on the implementation and operation of financial measures in the Bill. That is a sensible provision, and it is linked closely to the commencement of those financial provisions. We made that point repeatedly throughout debates on the Bill. In the Committee of the whole House, on the second day of debate, we discussed commencement powers to ensure that things were done at the correct time. We had a good debate on six separate commencement provisions for various financial measures. We said:
	“If the commencement arrangements are left unchanged, many of the most important questions about the Bill will be left unanswered.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 89.]
	On Third Reading, we said that the amendments that we had tabled on commencement would ensure that the tax provisions could not
	“be brought into effect unless the Scottish Parliament...specifically consented.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 248.]
	That was not just a point of principle—matters that affect the Scottish Parliament should be decided by the Scottish Parliament—but concerned some practical, technical issues. If a number of fiscal measures were introduced at the wrong time in the economic cycle that could be detrimental economically. Several Labour Members understood that point, and did so very clearly indeed, and it was interesting that Labour abstained
	from decisions on commencement—the party did not object to it, and I am glad that it welcomes what we have at the moment.
	I want to take the opportunity, unusually, to be generous to the Secretary of State. The discussions and negotiations between his team and Bruce Crawford, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Cabinet Strategy, and the letter that the Secretary of State sent to Bruce and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, were extremely helpful, particularly the part of the letter that said:
	“Consistent with the principle of consent”—
	which was what we were determined to deliver—
	“our two governments should reach agreement on implementation issues, including adjustments to the block grant…Each government should also provide assurance to its Parliament before the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into force and before implementation arrangements are brought into effect.”
	That agreement on the requirement properly to engage the Parliaments, and the principle of consent, were what we were trying to achieve. For the avoidance of doubt—and I have said this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is not a surprise to him—of course there will be a bun fight about the contents of the Bill. Of course the matters that are being devolved do not go far enough for the Scottish National party—that is not a huge surprise—but making sure that we avoid the dangers of the financial provisions commencing at the wrong time was always the key thing that we needed to change. The Secretary of State knows that, so I very much welcome that exchange of letters to ensure that commencement is done properly on the basis of consent.

Michael Moore: Allow me to be equally generous to the hon. Gentleman in accepting the points that he has made. From the outset, we have made it clear that we want to reach agreement on all those provisions before they are implemented. What he and his colleagues originally wished for was joint commencement powers, which are not in the Bill. However, we are committed, as we properly have to be, to working with the Scottish Government, of whatever colour, to ensure that those proposals are implemented properly.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Secretary of State. Irrespective of the final mechanism, which was a subject of some negotiation, the provisions, which allow us to proceed on the basis of consent and agreement, effectively deliver the protections against the commencement of fiscal provisions at the wrong time, which was a key objective in getting to where we are.

Rory Stewart: It seems a little dry to focus on Lords amendment 18 with reference to clause 37, but it is a central issue. It is not a dry issue at all. As my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, this is central to two issues that define the Union. The first is the issue of borrowing and finance, and the second is that of what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle called the issue of transparency. These two principles of borrowing and
	transparency—borrowing defined in clause 37 and transparency in Lords amendment 18—show why the Union matters. Transparency matters because an enormous amount of the pressure for separation from Scots, and from some English people, comes from suspicion—suspicion about money. Borrowing matters because borrowing shows why the Union can operate well.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), pointed out three things which the clause delivers. It delivers, first, decentralisation. An important part of decentralisation is fiscal responsibility. It delivers, secondly, a lever for growth, but the third and most important thing that it delivers is macroeconomic stability within the context of the United Kingdom. This is central because the biggest argument for the Union, the thing that underlies the dry language of the Bill, is why being part of a bigger country matters—why, to put it in the most brutal terms, we do not want to be Denmark.
	Why is it that our ancestors got on their Viking boats, left Denmark and came here? The answer is, of course, that there are benefits in size. There are benefits to having an economy 12 times the size of Denmark’s. There are benefits to having a population 12 times the size of Denmark’s, with the corresponding borrowing and fiscal responsibility. That perfect balance enshrined in clause 37 and revealed in amendment 18 is the balance that comes from the benefits of autonomy combined with the benefits of size.

Stewart Hosie: I am desperately looking forward to the hon. Gentleman explaining when a Viking decided to leave Denmark to come and be part of the British state. I like the hon. Gentleman, but I think his history is rather askew.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Actually, I would not like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to explain that in the context of these amendments, and I am sure he is coming back to what is relevant to them.

Rory Stewart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for us to discuss Scottish history later.
	We are discussing transparency, which is exactly what Lords amendment 18 relates to—explaining to this Parliament, to the Scottish Parliament, to the British people and to the Scottish people what we are doing with their money. Transparency is crucial because money is at the heart of this. On the one hand, the Scottish National party uses money to fight for separation through fantasies about oil. On the other hand, English nationalists, who are equally to blame for what is happening to the United Kingdom, focus on money to attack Scotland. This is the wrong thing to do.
	Lords amendment 18 matters because it should, we hope, put those arguments aside. There are those who imagine that we are going to wreck the United Kingdom because we are worried about free eye tests, prescription charges or tuition fees. For goodness sake, let us, in line with Lords amendment 18, see the money. What we will see is that we are spending every year in transfer payments to Scotland half of what we are spending on the war in Afghanistan, if we include the debt and veterans costs. The reason why we need to move beyond this is that the
	kind of borrowing enshrined in the clause and amended in Lords amendment 18 is the borrowing that made us great together.
	The very economics that underlie that notion of borrowing came south from Edinburgh with Adam Smith and the enlightenment. The very same borrowing on the basis of the United Kingdom meant that Scots and English were able to fight together at Waterloo and win. The very borrowing enshrined in clause 37 is what allowed us to create the national health service together. The very borrowing enshrined in clause 37 and amended and made transparent in Lords amendment 18 is what allows us to flourish today. I urge the House to vote for Lords amendment 18 because it enshrines the principle of togetherness.

Frank Roy: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a possible history debate with the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). We invite the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to come to the Floor of the House, because I am sure that the debate is one that the whole House would like to hear, and no doubt we know who the winner would be.

Rory Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed.
	Having been a little rhetorical, I will return to the measures set out in the new clause proposed in Lords amendment 18. I congratulate the example set by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South in the moderation of his tone. The conduct of the Ministers in this regard, which has been praised by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)—he is now leaving the Chamber to research in his history books—shows exemplary co-operation and is an example of why the United Kingdom Parliament works so well. The moderate voices of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South and the shadow Minister show that separation is unnecessary. The correct praise for the Scottish National party for its successes shows the successes of autonomy, not of separation and independence. If we can get the principles of transparency correct and the exact details of Lords amendment 18, the sinews of the Union, the point-by-point, sometimes dry legislative amendments that allow us to work together and avoid what the Scottish National party wishes to push us into—a black-and-white solution of either fatal inertness or still more terrible activity—we will instead, through a voice of passionate moderation and amendments of this sort, keep together the Union that made us great and will make us greater still.

Ian Murray: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has a great knowledge of everything historical and has driven the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) out of the Chamber to hunt out not only his history books, but no doubt his horned helmet. If he can drive SNP Members out of the Chamber with such ease, he should speak here more often to ensure they disappear.
	I, too, wish to concentrate on Lords amendment 18 and its proposed new clause, and that is for one simple reason: transparency. Transparency is the word that hits the new clause on the head, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We need transparency because over the past few months, and indeed since the Scottish parliamentary
	elections in 2011, we have had anything but from the Scottish Government. We have had smoke and mirrors on tax, the constitutional settlement, the currency, visa arrangements and NATO—the list is endless. One of the most prevalent calls in Scotland in the debate on separation is for transparency on taxation, because that feeds into public services and the ordinary lives of everyone who lives in Scotland and, indeed, the other component parts of the United Kingdom.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that there is a strong case for transparency from the Scottish Parliament on how money is spent, because we have not always had that?

Ian Murray: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising one of the key points on why we need transparency. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said clearly that transparency helps not only the Scottish people to determine how their money is spent and allocated, but the other component parts of the United Kingdom to see how money is spent in Scotland, which would be welcomed by everyone in this House. Indeed, we have not even had transparency on the Bill itself. The Bill has been called “a poison pill”, “a dog’s breakfast” and “dangerous” by the same party that voted for it, campaigned against it and will, no doubt, vote for the amendments if the House divides this afternoon.
	We need transparency from the Scottish Government at every level on what they wish to achieve. In the past few months, we have heard the Scottish National party say in public—the records are available—that it would reduce fuel duty, reduce corporation tax to the level it is in Ireland, and will be in Northern Ireland, which is 12.5 %, and that it would reduce duties and business rates. I am not an expert on taxation systems or, indeed, on algorithms or mathematics, but it seems that that would lower every single tax in Scotland, so I pose the question, where would the money come from? There is only one place that it can come from, and that is public services, so, on the report that would come from the Secretary of State concerning those powers, I challenge the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party to tell us, with regard to every single tax that they wish to lower or decrease, where the money will come from and where the money will go.
	Let us take corporation tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) mentioned, and which is a complicated issue. I mentioned smoke and mirrors at the start of my contribution, and there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Scottish Government on corporation tax. They have used the example of Northern Ireland, but there are two clear lessons from Northern Ireland.
	As I said in an intervention, Northern Ireland wants corporation tax devolved to equalise its rate with the country on its land border to the south and ensure that it is not disadvantaged. That highlights two things: first, that the land border is important; and secondly that corporation tax levels, when they are lowered to such a drastic state as we have seen in Ireland, create an uncompetitive situation and a race to the bottom.
	We cannot afford that race to the bottom in the United Kingdom, with its land border between England and Scotland, because it would create an environment
	in which the money that came out of the block grant—some £2.6 billion if the rate were equalised with Ireland’s at 12.5%—would have to come from public services.
	The Scottish Government have yet to tell us which public services they would cut. The national health service already has far fewer nurses in Scotland than it did in 2007, and the Scottish Government have yet to tell us where the money would come from in terms of public services, so I should welcome the debate and the evidence that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tells us we should have about corporation tax, because perhaps the Scottish Government could lay out that information, and the report under discussion, which would come back annually to the House until those taxation powers had been fully devolved, would be very welcome and could examine some of those issues.
	The smoke and mirrors continues, because the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, when he was in London yesterday, no doubt met his London SNP colleagues to discuss these issues. In his speech to the Institute of Directors he suggested that, with the powers in the Bill transferred to Scotland, income tax levels in Scotland would not be changed. One of the key points here is that the Scottish Parliament has powers to reduce or to increase income tax in Scotland by 3p, but the Scottish Government chose not to maintain HMRC’s systems to enable that, so we are left with the Scottish Government and, indeed, the First Minister jumping up and down like little children, demanding powers—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I am sure that he is coming back to the debate which we are having here about the importance and relevance of the report.

Ian Murray: I will be coming back to the report this very second, because it is about transparency, and what we have had quite clearly from the Scottish Government is a complete lack of transparency. I hope that the report allows us some, because when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will have a Scottish rate of income tax, the devolution of stamp duties, the devolution of landfill tax, the power to create new taxes and the power to borrow of many billions of pounds—borrowing powers, incidentally, which the Scottish Government did not want but have planned to use. So it is quite important that the report comes back.
	With this amendment, the Lords have done a good job of enabling us to see where the new taxes will go. I certainly welcome it and will support it later this afternoon.

Fiona Bruce: Having listened to the positive speeches that have been made about Lords amendment 18, I wonder whether it needs more support from either side of the House, but I rise to support it none the less.
	As a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I welcome the Bill, as amended, and recognise how positive it is that the Government have delivered the additional powers for Holyrood that were promised in the coalition
	agreement, thereby fulfilling a manifesto commitment of more than one party in the House. As has been said many times—but it bears repeating—the Bill will deliver the largest transfer of fiscal powers to Scotland since the creation of the UK. It has involved a huge amount of work by many people, not least by Ministers at the Scotland Office. I congratulate them on reaching this stage with the Bill and on its being supported by Holyrood and the UK Government without reservation.
	I welcome Lords amendment 18, which will facilitate better scrutiny of the implementation of the financial aspects of the Bill. As we all recognise, economic growth driven by enterprise and predominantly by businesses in our local communities will be a key element in the resurgence of this nation. Creating a new Scottish rate of income tax from April 2016 will give the Scottish Government more responsibility not only over how they spend revenue, but over how they raise it. That is a crucial discipline, which we hope will increase the likelihood that fiscal decisions will reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland, the Scottish economy and, most importantly, the businesses of Scotland. This is an opportunity to deliver genuine and innovative fiscal accountability for the people of Scotland. The amendment will further facilitate and enhance that.
	I welcome the fairness, transparency and accountability that the amendment will promote, which have been mentioned by a number of Members. It will insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on the implementation and operation of the financial aspects of the Bill within one year of the Bill becoming an Act, and thereafter to publish an annual report until a year after the tax and borrowing powers are fully transferred to the Scottish Parliament. I welcome the fact that such reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and sent to Scottish Ministers, who will have to lay them before the Scottish Parliament, and the joint working and greater co-operation that that process will undoubtedly promote. As has been said, the new clause will require Scottish Ministers to make and lay reports of the same kind before the Scottish Parliament on an annual basis and to provide a copy of each report to the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament.
	The new clause also sets out the areas that each report must include. That detail is welcome, and I will mention some of the details because, although they have been referred to, they have not been covered as comprehensively as I would like. The reports must include an update on all aspects of progress towards the commencement of provisions on the financial aspects of the Bill since the previous report; detail of any steps towards the commencement that the maker of the report proposes should be taken; an assessment of the operation of the provisions that have been commenced; an assessment of the operation of powers to devolve taxes to the Scottish Parliament or to change the powers of Scottish Ministers to borrow—those borrowing powers are substantial and I will return to them in a moment—or of any other changes to the financial provisions in the Bill; the effect of transferring tax powers on the Scottish block grant; and any other matters concerning sources of revenue for the Scottish Administration that the maker of the report considers should be brought to the attention of the UK or Scottish Parliaments. The sheer width of the areas that will be scrutinised in the report is to be welcomed.
	There will be a new £2.2 billion capital borrowing power for the Scottish Parliament from April 2015. A limited version of the power will be in place from April 2013 to enable the Scottish Government to fund £100 million of prepayments for the Forth road crossing, which will allow early work on the bridge to get under way. That will provide an effective boost for the economy across Scotland and the UK.
	The other powers that will be introduced and that will be scrutinised include not only the new Scottish rate of income tax, which will be in place from April 2016, but the power to introduce new taxes, subject to the agreement of the UK Government, from the enactment of the Bill, and the full devolution of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax from April 2015. Those are not token gestures, but substantial changes, as the figures show. Last month, the Office for Budget Responsibility produced a forecast of the sums that will be raised under the Scotland Bill powers in 2015-16. The figures demonstrate the importance of good scrutiny. The sums are great: £5.265 billion from income tax, £480 million from stamp duty, £151 million from landfill tax and £49 million from the aggregates levy. They are huge figures by any standards, and it is right that there is year-on-year reporting on them, with scrutiny and accountability. That is why the amendment is so welcome.
	The amendment will strengthen democratic accountability, better inform all those involved and the people whom they serve and bolster political engagement in Scottish communities, which is welcome. The amended income tax provision in the Bill will mean that the procedure for setting the Scottish Government’s budget will be more responsive to the wishes of the Scottish electorate, and the additional provisions of Lords amendment 18 will effectively augment the implementation of the change.
	The Bill as amended is about improving the devolution settlement and promoting economic growth effectively. The income tax proposals in it retain the reservation of overall fiscal management to the UK Government, but ensure that Scotland’s needs are supported alongside a UK-wide strategy of promoting growth and economic stability for all those in the Union. In welcoming the Bill, the report of the Scottish Parliament’s own Committee stated:
	“The Scotland Bill is about good government. It is intended to improve how Scotland is governed and align decisions on spending and taxation more closely so that the Scottish Parliament will be more accountable and, in the long run, take better decisions. Better decisions will, in the longer term, mean improvements to many aspects of Scottish public life.”
	I am sure the scrutiny that the amendment will provide—it is good to hear that it is a Government amendment—will indeed furnish those improvements.
	Devolution on the basis of the Bill as amended will give Scotland the best of both worlds. It is better off as part of a strong UK when dealing with economic and global security shocks, and the devolution settlement as set down in the Bill will facilitate Scotland in making its own decisions on matters such as health, education, transport and policing. I am therefore pleased that, after careful consideration, the Bill has been supported by both Houses in the UK Parliament, and that it was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament just a few days ago following agreement in March between the UK and Scottish Governments on its details. That is an example of the effective joint working that Lords amendment 18 is intended further to promote.
	I congratulate the Government on their determination to continue to bring operational effectiveness to the new tax powers in the Bill through joint working over the coming months and years. The Bill is a fair and substantial way of promoting devolution, with the intention of reaching effective implementation. I am sure that Members of all parties will welcome the good intent that the Government are showing towards that effective implementation and joint working on the Bill. I welcome the Bill as amended.

Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). The Scottish people are always pleased at the interest and indulgence of English Members of Parliament in our affairs and business. We are all grateful for that.
	It is a pity that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has left the Chamber. I did not know whether to reach first for my horned helmet or my longboat during his comments about Vikings. I do not know how many people in Denmark are rushing to join a greater union with Germany—certainly I have never come across a Dane who has been keen to be part of that particular union.
	The most notable thing about these Lords amendments is how little they were discussed in the Lords. I do not know whether other Members spent any time looking at the debates in the House of Lords, but I did, and “interminable” would not be the word to describe some of them. At times it seemed like the Michael Forsyth show—he was on his feet all the time. Such is his pre-eminent place in the Tory-led cross-Unionist alliance that people like him are leading the debate just now.

David Mundell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, unlike the Scottish National party, Lord Forsyth achieved extra devolution to Scotland in the Bill? Lord Forsyth introduced amendments that extended the Scottish Parliament’s powers, which were accepted in the House of Lords and will be proposed in this Chamber. The Scottish National party has failed—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I would like both the Minister and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to return to the subject of the amendments. We should talk about the subject, not what debates went on elsewhere. I am sure, Mr Wishart, you will do so immediately.

Pete Wishart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to speak to the Lords amendments and discuss where they came from. We did not get much of a debate in the House of Lords. I do not know whether the Minister is helping the cross-Unionist campaign by promoting Michael Forsyth as a champion of the Unionist cause. I can see Labour Members practically squirming—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Perhaps I did not make myself abundantly clear, Mr Wishart, so I shall do it now. If you wish to address the House, I wish you to address it on the basis of the business before us, which is Lords amendment 18 and associated matters, and to do so now, please.

Pete Wishart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just making the point that there was very little in the way of debate, but the Government amendments are welcome. I particularly welcome the fact that the re-reservations have disappeared. I heard what the Minister said. I remember debates in the House going back to last March on the re-reservations of health professionals. I remember the passionate case that was put for—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not on Third Reading for the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the entire debates on the Bill. We are on very specific and narrow Lords amendments, and I would like him to address them.

Pete Wishart: I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there not an amendment about health professionals? Can I not address that?

Dawn Primarolo: I have not heard the hon. Gentleman mention health professionals yet, except on that point. If it is relevant to the amendments, he can address health professionals.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We have effectively ensured that there will no longer be re-reservations of health professionals because the clause was dropped, but the point I was trying to make was on how we managed to get to that point. I remember the debate and the passionate case that was put for the re-reservation of health professionals. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) does not agree with that, but I do not know whether Labour Front Benchers take that position or whether they believe that re-reservation is no longer required. I would be interested to find out how we got to this position.

David Mundell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier. The Government reached this position because the Scottish Government gave assurances that they would work with the UK Government to ensure that the regulation of health professionals was the same across the UK. On the basis of those assurances, which I understand still hold good, the UK Government agreed that we would not put that clause in the Bill, hence the amendment. We have acted on the basis of assurances given by the SNP Government. I do not expect that they will renege on those assurances, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting they will.

Pete Wishart: That sort of clarifies things, but I do not understand why the Minister did not accept the amendments when they were debated in the House in March last year. We know the right hon. Member for Stirling does not like the amendments and that the Minister has grudgingly given the re-reservation away, but we do not know the position of Labour Front Benchers.

Anne McGuire: rose —

Pete Wishart: I will give way to the right hon. Lady even though she did not give way to me.

Anne McGuire: I appreciate that I pre-empted this debate by speaking to the earlier group of amendments, but for the sake of clarity, I said that I supported the
	amendment because of the assurances given by the Scottish Government that there would still be a system of strategic regulation of health professionals. I would not like the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret me even if I pre-empted this discussion.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I listened very carefully to what she said earlier, and picked up that her acceptance of that re-reservation measure was very grudging, as was her acceptance of the rest of the re-reservation measures addressed in this group of amendments.
	There is one issue that has escaped attention, and that is the partially suspended acts of the Scottish Parliament, so that they can be challenged in the Supreme Court. One act of the Scottish Parliament that was challenged in the Supreme Court was our legislation on compensation for the victims of asbestos—a very important Bill that was supported by the whole of the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld the Scottish Parliament’s position on that issue. If that partial suspension had been allowed to continue, such challenges would have become much more common.
	Professor Tierney of the University of Edinburgh said, when he was advising the Committee in the Scottish Parliament, that the idea of partial suspension was deeply disrespectful. I am pleased that it has now been abandoned as a result of the insistence of the Scottish Government and the good negotiations that have gone on between this Government and the Scottish Government.
	We welcome the fact that so many of the things on which the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, through the Bill Committee, have insisted have now been accepted by this Government. That has made this Bill better. Thank goodness we no longer have the two-way traffic that was supported and promoted by the Labour party on re-reservations. That was anti-devolutionist and I am glad it has abandoned that position. We support further powers for the Scottish Parliament. We now have the support of the Labour party in trying to achieve that, and it is once again a devolutionist party. I only look forward to the day when we get all the powers—the whole shooting match—returning to the Scottish Parliament.

Michael Crockart: I welcome the amendments to the Scotland Bill, which—I am proud to say—was brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity in the coalition’s programme by a Liberal Democrat Minister, reflecting our 100-year commitment to home rule. The Bill is the outcome of an inclusive and iterative process, and reflects the devolution journey embarked on in 1999. I am sure that it will not be the final iteration.
	The Bill devolves huge further powers to the Scottish Government, which will make that Government much more responsible to the Scottish people for the taxes they raise and the money they spend, and that is hugely welcome. Powers should reside at the best level for them to be exercised, and in accordance with that sentiment, the original proposed reservation of powers relating to insolvency and the regulation of health professionals—as well as the powers relating to Antarctica, as we would not want to forget those—was a sensible part of that
	iterative process. I happily supported them as they reflected the key Liberal Democrat principle that powers should reside at that level of government where they most sensibly lie.
	I understand the reason for removing those parts of the original Bill, given the assurances that the Minister has now received from the Scottish Government, but I am left confused by the situation that remains for the SNP and the Scottish Government. We now have assurances that insolvency will be treated similarly cross-border, and that regulation of health professionals will also be maintained in the same way. Those issues are added to the currency, monetary policy, the monarchy and, yesterday, income tax levels as areas in which there would be no change if Scottish independence were achieved. In the same vein, NATO membership may even be up for grabs.
	The Bill and the amendments are the result of a sensible consultation and compromise, and that is surely the correct and proven way to move the devolution settlement forward. I know we will see further iteration of that once the distraction of independence has been put to bed as quickly as possible.

Ian Davidson: May I make the same apology to the House as I made to you earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having been late for the debate? There was a break-in in Glasgow and I was involved in clearing things up.
	As Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I very much welcome clause 18. Aside from the political discussions and disagreements in the Committee and elsewhere about the Bill, the main issue on which we wanted the Government to move was the question of transparency and whether the transfer of financial powers, both borrowing and revenue-raising, would have unintended consequences. We were concerned that the transfer might lead to errors and a diminution in the amount of money going to the Scottish Parliament owing to other changes not intended by the legislative movements being proposed.
	We wanted to ensure that everything was above board and clear because we recognised that gainsayers of devolution wished to identify causes of dissent and disagreement. We thought that illumination of the facts might remove difficulty. The proposals to make everything transparent address our major issues with the Bill. Others might have said this already, but this seems to be a major step forward from the Government, indicating that they are prepared to consider the work of a Select Committee and take onboard its non-partisan points. My Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), is present. I understand that the Committee is the high point of her week—she has said that to me and my colleagues several times—and I hope that she has made these points as well.

Michael Moore: I hope that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred are sorted out quickly. I thank him and his Committee for their work and for his observation that the amendment resolves one of the central issues that he was anxious about. We assured him at the time that we wanted to ensure transparency and a proper ability for scrutiny. The report will be the basis of that, and I look forward to discussing the matter with him further at the appropriate moment.

Ian Davidson: I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes. Witnesses have told me that someone was seen running away from the scene: they were wearing a pair of tartan trews, a kilt, a Scotland football top, a See You Jimmy hat and an Alex Salmond mask, and were holding a set of SNP manifestos, but this might have been a disguise.
	I hope that how the dialogue has taken place so far will continue. The Secretary of State makes a useful point. It is essential that we do not simply have a big-bang transfer. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, this has to be an iterative process. We hope there will be a dialogue with the Select Committee, before the transfer and even before the papers are tabled with the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster, so that all reasonable complaints can be raised in a multi-party atmosphere. It is important not to give those who wish to pick a fight unnecessarily the opportunity do so. It is therefore essential that the maximum amount of information is made available at all times.
	I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the clause and the Government for following it through—and I hope, in future contributions, to update the House on the reports of the criminal activity that has been taking place in Glasgow.

Eleanor Laing: I rise to speak to Lords amendment 18, which I thoroughly support, like everyone else who has spoken. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is something of an expert in these matters, for his measured and helpful approach, to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for all her work on these matters in the Select Committee, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), whose impassioned speech has, I am sure, left its mark on the House, as it should have done. Unsurprisingly, however, I take issue with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) over his patronising remarks about the indulgence of Members speaking in the debate whose seats are not in Scotland—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman has just indicated that he was being pleasant in his remarks. If that was the case, I thank him for them.

Fiona Bruce: If my hon. Friend was referring to a comment made following my speech, I must tell her that I took it in good part.

Eleanor Laing: Perhaps I am being cynical about the hon. Gentleman’s motives; I have listened to him speaking in the House over many years.

Pete Wishart: I am very disappointed that the hon. Lady should interpret my kind and pleasant comments in such a way. The people of Scotland are always on tenterhooks waiting to hear what she has to say on the great Scottish issues.

Eleanor Laing: It is a matter of fact that, since the sad passing of my mother, nobody in Scotland listens to me at all any more, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hope that he will forgive me for misinterpreting what he said.
	The fact is that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the matters that are discussed and examined here affect the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why Lords amendment 18 is so important. Just as the people of Epping Forest have no particular interest in what happens in Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull, Cornwall or Belfast, those events affect all of us none the less. We live together on this small island, and any artificially created divisions cannot hide the fact that we are interdependent and that our economy is the economy of the whole of the British isles. Those things that affect one of us affect all of us, and that is why Lords amendment 18 is so important.
	The amendment clearly highlights the equal partnership, particularly in regard to taxation and economic welfare, between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. I wonder why anyone would wish to go further and create an unnecessary and damaging artificial separation. Amendment 18 and the others pertaining to this part of the Bill relate to an enormous transfer of power and accountability from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. So it should be. As a result of the transparency introduced by the Bill, as a result of Lords amendment 18, both Parliaments will be required to examine the economic fiscal affairs of each part of the United Kingdom. I hope that those matters will therefore be clearly seen as the years go on. If separation were to take place, we would lose all the strength that has been built up over a long time. I hope, however, that it will become apparent, with more transparency and a greater ability on the part of each of our legislative Houses to examine these matters, that the interdependence of the United Kingdom brings benefits to all of the United Kingdom.

David Mowat: To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), I rise with passionate moderation to speak in favour of Lords amendment 18, although I will ask for some clarification of those provisions and of the legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament.
	For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed new clause in Lords amendment 18, for which many claims have been made in the debate, is concerned with the implementation of the financial aspects of the Bill. It is extremely welcome that we are going to have a yearly review of those aspects. My points relate to some of the wording in the Secretary of State’s statement in March and to the prior negotiation between him and the Scottish Parliament.
	Members have mentioned the Barnett formula, but it is not my intention to talk about it, other than to say that I do not apologise for being a proponent of a needs-based formula. I agree that moderate language should be used, but I would like to put on the record the fact that I feel that the current settlement is wrong. It is not a question of subsidy or largesse. The Scottish economy pays for the money it receives through oil revenues. I accept that. My point is, however, that for a nation or country such as the United Kingdom, revenues should be allocated on the basis of needs, not of where the oil is to be found. I put on the record again that the current arrangements have no element of subsidy. The
	working of the Barnett formula merely ensures that Scotland is whole, as it were, in respect of the Scottish oil revenues.
	Let me deal now with the statement of 21 March, which I think provided the basis of the proposed new clause. The Secretary of State said that he would like to reflect in the new tax-raising powers the proposal recommended by Holtham, which would shield Scotland from macro-economic shocks. There would also be a no-detriment principle. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that he felt the House of Lords debate on this subject was poor. I have read their lordships’ comments and I have also read those of the Scottish Parliament—and I would say that it is pretty much 50:50 in length and quality. I thought both debates were good, but I want to speak further on the issue of no detriment.
	This no-detriment provision represents a change to the working of the Bill between now and the last time it was discussed in this House about a year ago. I hope that Ministers will put my mind at rest as to how it will work. To recap, the last time we discussed this matter, we were going to adjust the block grant for the amount of income tax raised in Scotland. That was to be a once-and-for-all adjustment, and then we would be able to move forward. If Scotland were to raise more income tax, it would have more revenue, enabling it to spend more on public services and so forth.
	That position has now changed. The House of Lords called it a fudge. Essentially, the change relates to the principle of no detriment. My question is this: no detriment to whom? My understanding is that the allocation will be reviewed each year, as advocated in the proposed new clause. If, as a consequence of how the system works, Scotland loses out due to its income tax revenues not having risen as expected, an adjustment will be made to ensure that Scottish taxpayers are not out of pocket. That, as I understand it, is the no-detriment principle. There could be detriment, however, as this is a zero-sum game. I welcome the transparency of an allocation of that type, but its consequence will be a movement of resources from the UK to Scotland. That does not seem to me to be equitable, but perhaps Ministers will be able to put my mind at rest on that point.
	Let me raise three questions about the proposed new clause in Lords amendment 18. First, is there a fear that the no-detriment principle reduces the accountability of the Scottish Parliament? I think it was Mr Crawford who, during the debate in Scotland, suggested that, had the principle been introduced over the past four or five years, there would have been an increased transfer to Scotland of many billions of pounds. That may or may not be true, but we should certainly not simply nod the measure through without its being understood.
	I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance. I think that we have all been present when Members of the Scottish National party have described the Bill as a dog’s breakfast and a pig’s ear. I apologise if I have got that the wrong way round and it was a pig’s breakfast and a dog’s ear. However, the transcript of the Scottish debate suggests that there was a lot more enthusiasm about the Bill there, much of it in respect of the no-detriment principle. So was Mr Crawford right? Is it true that, had the principle been introduced three or four years ago, there would have been a transfer differing
	by billions from what was discussed a year ago on the Floor of the House? If that is the case, there should be a transparent discussion about it.
	Finally, I should like to know whether the no-detriment principle implies a two-way flow. Does it work in both directions? According to my understanding of its operation, if income tax in Scotland as a proportion of the total UK income tax becomes less important, there will be an adjustment. Will that adjustment also take place in the opposite direction?
	I repeat that, notwithstanding the fairly technical points that I have raised, I support the Bill and the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 18. Whatever else it may do, it will increase transparency.

David Mundell: With the leave of the House, I shall respond specifically to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), because I understood all the other Members who have spoken to be expressing support for the amendments, some more grudgingly than others.
	I do not wish to question the accuracy of my hon. Friend’s analysis of the debates that have taken place in the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament, but according to my reading of Bruce Crawford’s contribution to the Scottish debate, he made no reference to the no-detriment principle. He did, however, refer to the Holtham approach. There are two separate issues in play. The Holtham approach is about the adjustment of the block grant.

Lindsay Roy: Can the Minister confirm that the same Bruce Crawford did not describe the Bill as a poison pill, a dog’s breakfast, and dangerous?

David Mundell: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s recollection of what Mr Crawford may have said about the Bill on previous occasions, but as I said earlier, I welcomed his constructive approach in his dealings with me, with the Secretary of State and with the UK Government in taking the Bill through the Scottish Parliament by way of a unanimously expressed legislative consent motion.
	During the debate in that Parliament, Mr Crawford referred to the Holtham approach, which, as I said a moment ago, relates to the adjustment of the block grant and is separate from the no-detriment principle. The Government have accepted that, as in relation to Wales, the Holtham methodology should apply for calculating block grant adjustments. That is the basis on which we will move forward. I do not accept that over the past 12 years or so the Scottish Parliament and Government have been deprived of funds. As others have said, no matter how much money is allocated to the current Scottish Government under whatever mechanism, it would never be enough.
	The no-detriment principle refers to how the financial system will operate after the Scottish rate of income tax comes into force. Under that principle, the UK Government would either compensate the Scottish budget for the costs of their policy change on the devolved tax base through the block grant, or receive funds back if the Scottish budget benefits from the policy change in raised receipts. The cost or benefit to the UK from decisions taken on the income tax structure is therefore
	exactly the same as it would have been before this Bill devolved 10p on income tax to Scotland, and the Scottish budget would be no better or worse off.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility will forecast the impact of UK decisions on the Scottish rate of income tax, and we will take steps to ensure that the Scottish budget is compensated. There is therefore a principle of reciprocity. Where one Administration either gains or loses as a result of decisions taken by the other Administration, across the shared income tax there are measures in place to compensate for that loss or gain. This is simply a matter of common sense. It is based on the principle of accountability, which lies at the heart of the statement of funding policy.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South that where decisions taken by any of the devolved Administrations have financial implications for UK Departments, or where UK decisions lead to additional costs for any of the devolved Administrations, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost.
	Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Continued effect of provisions where legislative competence conferred for limited period

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 3.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we may take Lords amendment 4.

David Mundell: Lords amendment 3 would remove clause 10, and Lords amendment 4 would replace it with a new clause making similar, but expanded, provision.
	Clause 10 makes provision regarding the status of the Acts of the Scottish Parliament after temporary changes to legislative competence following an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. There is widespread recognition that clarity is required on the status of Acts of the Scottish Parliament in the event that its legislative competence is reduced. The Government introduced these amendments in the other place to provide clarity following comments from the previous Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee and the Law Society of Scotland.
	Lords amendment 4 would ensure that Acts of the Scottish Parliament that have been validly made within the legislative competence that existed at the time do not cease to have effect purely because of changes to the boundaries of competence. Therefore, provisions contained in Acts of the Scottish Parliament will not automatically fall following an alteration of legislative competence, and no gaps in the law will inadvertently be created as a result. Such provisions would cease to have effect only if explicitly provided for in an enactment.
	I hope the House will agree that Lords amendment 4 is sensible and will strengthen the provision originally contained in clause 10, and that Lords amendments 3 and 4 will be agreed to.

William Bain: Lords amendment 3 removes clause 10, and Lords amendment 4 inserts a new clause before clause 11 on the matter of provisions ceasing to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	Clause 10 would have permitted laws passed by the Scottish Parliament under a temporary transfer of powers—such as under a section 30 order—to remain in force after that transfer had come to an end. We note that the new clause widens the scope of the transfer, with the effect that any such laws, whether in the form of an Act of the Scottish Parliament or subordinate legislation, would have effect even where the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate had been removed, irrespective of whether this had been granted on a short or longer-term basis. We consider the new clause to remove any potential future ambiguities, and on that basis we are content to support Lords amendment 3.
	Lords amendment 3 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 4 to 8 agreed  to .

Clause 17
	 — 
	The Lord Advocate: Convention rights and Community law

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 19 to 25.

David Mundell: There has been much debate about the role of the Lord Advocate and the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal proceedings. That debate has come a long way, and there is now agreement that the Supreme Court should have a role in relation to the European convention on human rights and EU law issues arising in Scottish criminal appeals.
	The amendments tabled by the Government in the Lords took account of the many views expressed on these issues, including those of the expert group set up by the Advocate-General for Scotland. It would be appropriate at this point to remark on the passing of Paul McBride QC, who served on the expert group. Paul McBride was a well respected lawyer in Scotland and a highly regarded member of civic Scotland, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him and by the wider legal community. The amendments also took account of the views of the review group led by the noble and learned Lord McCluskey. On Report in the other place, he commented on the Government’s amendments. The end result of that process is something that even I could agree to about 98% of—which for anyone, never mind a lawyer, is a pretty good outcome, given where the debate started. In addition, the amendments tabled by the Government reflected the agreement that was reached with the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislative consent motion in support of the Bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament.
	Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 22 replace clause 17 and make further provision about Scottish criminal proceedings. Subsection (2) of the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 21 would make the same provision as provided for by clause 17(2). That would mean that acts or failures to act by the Lord Advocate in prosecuting any offence, or as head of the system of criminal
	prosecutions and investigations into death in Scotland, would not be ultra vires should those acts be incompatible with the European convention on human rights or EU law. However, it will still be possible for acts of the Lord Advocate to be unlawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 if the Lord Advocate acts in a way that is incompatible with the convention.
	Lords amendments 19 to 21 provide for a new route of appeal to the Supreme Court for compatibility issues—questions raised in criminal proceedings about convention and EU law issues. Those issues would no longer be able to be raised as devolution issues. Lords amendment 21 would provide a right to appeal a compatibility issue from the High Court, acting as an appeal court, to the Supreme Court. The permission of the High Court or the Supreme Court would be needed for most appeals. An application for permission to appeal would have to be made within specified time limits, which could be extended if the Court considered that equitable.
	Lords amendment 21 provides that the Supreme Court would only be able to determine a compatibility issue and would then have to remit the case back to the High Court. The High Court would then decide what steps needed to be taken in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision. For example, the Supreme Court would not be able to decide to overturn an accused’s conviction; that would be for the High Court to decide.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome that part of the group, but will the Minister make it absolutely clear—I believe he is just about to do so—that what we are seeing with these changes is an ending of the Supreme Court’s ability to substitute its decision for that of the High Court?

David Mundell: On this occasion, I am able to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome. The provisions in the Bill, if these amendments are approved, will mean exactly that: the Supreme Court will not be able to substitute its own judgment for that of the High Court.

Menzies Campbell: Many of us in the House would wish to associate ourselves with the very generous and entirely appropriate remarks that the Minister made about Paul McBride. May I put it to the Minister that these amendments are an entirely effective antidote to the ill judged and ill informed comments made about the Supreme Court and its members by Scottish Ministers last summer?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The remarks made by the First Minister about members of the Supreme Court were beneath him; they demeaned his office and were wholly inappropriate.

Ian Davidson: Just for clarification, were the First Minister’s comments successful, in that his criticisms resulted in these amendments? If so, we would obviously take note of that. If not, that deserves to be spelt out.

David Mundell: I am happy to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that views expressed by the First Minister about the Supreme Court played no part in these amendments or the completion of the Scotland Bill. Indeed, in dialogue involving the Scottish Government and Lord Advocate a much more moderate and sensible
	tone was adopted in relation to these matters, hence the ability to agree on what I would regard as a sensible and fair set of provisions that deal with the matters at hand.

Ian Davidson: Leaving aside the vehemence of the language used by the First Minister, was the substance of his comments the cause of the changes being introduced?

David Mundell: No. The changes being introduced today are a result of a process that was instigated by the Advocate-General for Scotland.

Menzies Campbell: The Minister will recall that the attitude taken, to which both of us have referred, was to suggest that there should be no role of any kind for the Supreme Court in relation to any criminal issue arising out of Scotland. The proposals that he is now arguing for so eloquently represent an effective and entirely acceptable compromise.

David Mundell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. The proposals that form part of these amendments were part of the legislative consent motion that went before the Scottish Parliament and received unanimous support of that Parliament. Indeed, they were not opposed or spoken against by any Member of the Scottish National party, including the First Minister.
	Lords amendment 20 would provide powers for compatibility issues to be referred to the High Court and the Supreme Court. That will enable such issues to be dealt with more quickly, where appropriate, which will be useful when a compatibility issue has implications for other cases. There are currently no time limits for appealing devolution issues in criminal proceedings to the Supreme Court. It is important that there is finality and certainty, especially for victims, in relation to criminal proceedings. Lords amendment 22 would impose time limits for seeking permission to appeal devolution issues from the High Court to the Supreme Court for devolution issues raised in Scottish criminal proceedings. The time limits are the same as those that will apply to compatibility issues.
	Lords amendment 23 makes provision for a review to be arranged by the Secretary of State of the new compatibility issue procedure and of the introduction of time limits for certain devolution issue appeals. The review is to be carried out as soon as practicable after the provisions have been in force for three years. The review may be carried out earlier if that is considered appropriate. It will be wide ranging and will look at all aspects of the provisions and consider whether changes should be made. The UK Government and the Scottish Government have agreed that the review will be chaired by the Lord Justice General.
	Lords amendments 24 and 25 make consequential amendments to clause 41.

William Bain: First, let me associate the official Opposition with the Minister’s remarks about Paul McBride. I also thank the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for reminding the House of the importance of the Supreme Court in ensuring that institutions of government are exercised in accordance with the rule of law. That is a vital element of our constitution and one that must not go unheard in the House today.
	Lords amendments 9 and 19 to 25 collectively omit clause 17 from the Bill and add new clauses before clauses 38 and 41 in respect of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the functions of the Lord Advocate in criminal prosecutions in Scotland, Acts of the Scottish Parliament thereby affected, and the role of the Advocate-General for Scotland.
	Lords amendment 19 amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to provide that the Advocate-General may take part as a party in criminal proceedings in Scotland in so far as they relate to a compatibility issue over the actions or omissions of a public authority relating to convention rights or EU law or over whether an Act of the Scottish Parliament or any provision thereof raises issues of compatibility with EU law or convention rights in Scottish criminal proceedings.
	Lords amendment 20 makes further amendment to the 1995 Act to provide that when a compatibility issue arises in criminal proceedings in a court, other than any High Court of Justiciary proceeding heard before two or more judges, compatibility issues may be referred to the High Court of Justiciary. That may be required by the Lord Advocate or by the Advocate-General, if he is a party to the proceedings. In turn, the High Court of Justiciary may refer a compatibility issue to the Supreme Court, and may be required to do so by the Lord Advocate or by the Advocate-General, if he or she is a party to the proceedings.
	Lords amendment 20 makes it clear that the role of the Supreme Court is restricted to determining the compatibility issue, whereby the case is then remitted back to the High Court of Justiciary for determination in the light of the Supreme Court ruling on the compatibility issues. That amends the relationship between the two courts, and while it preserves the ability of the Supreme Court to make entirely authoritative and decisive rulings on questions of the compatibility of the decisions of the Lord Advocate in relation to Scottish criminal proceedings and the prosecution system, it also ensures that the High Court of Justiciary is the judicial forum in which any convictions required to be reduced in the light of such a compatibility ruling are reduced.
	Lords amendment 22 introduces a new clause that creates a time limit for application to the High Court of Justiciary in some cases, and to the Supreme Court in more serious criminal cases, of 28 days following the initial decision or, in the latter case, against the refusal to give permission for a compatibility reference. However, as the Minister suggested, that time limit can be extended by either court on the ground of equity.
	Lords amendment 23 introduces a further new clause that obliges the Secretary of State to hold a review of those new processes three years after the entry into force of the new clauses that might include the requirement for prior certification. The amendments deal with the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court decisions in Cadder v. Her Majesty’s Advocate and in Fraser v. Her Majesty’s Advocate. In November 2010, an expert group appointed by the Advocate-General for Scotland produced recommendations on the revision of the devolution settlement and its handling of the Lord Advocate’s role in criminal proceedings. The group recommended preserving the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over that area against the prevailing wisdom, if
	we can term it that way, of the First Minister and the Scottish Justice Secretary, but refining the process of reference to that court.
	The Scottish Government established their own review group chaired by Lord McCluskey which endorsed the continuing reference of some criminal cases to the Supreme Court on matters of compatibility with EU law and convention rights. The McCluskey review, however, suggested introducing a requirement of prior certification by the High Court of Justiciary before a case could be referred on appeal to the Supreme Court. That proposal was not endorsed in the other place because of arguments that the processes in Scotland and in England and Wales were not comparable, as there was no general right of appeal to the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal cases, unlike their equivalents in England and Wales. In particular, my noble friend Lord Boyd made a compelling argument that a requirement of prior certification could result in people losing the right to protection under EU law and the convention rights enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998 that they enjoyed. The requirement for prior certification by the High Court of Justiciary before seeking direct leave was further questioned by the Law Society of Scotland and by the Faculty of Advocates.
	The amendments remove the Lord Advocate from the scope of section 57 of the Scotland Act in relation to the determination of devolution issues by the Supreme Court, and create a new category of compatibility issues that determine the Lord Advocate’s compliance with EU law obligations or those arising from convention rights in Scottish criminal proceedings. The new process is therefore more efficient and less cumbersome than the existing one. The amendments strike the right balance between protecting the existing rights of individuals in criminal cases while affording the High Court of Justiciary the ability to make final determinations on convictions in the light of Supreme Court rulings on compatibility.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I deduced that he was about to conclude. Is it not important to remember that the case of Cadder raised the issue of the right to legal representation and advice for someone in police custody, and that the case of Fraser raised the issue of the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities to make available to the defence all relevant evidence, perhaps to assist the defence in making a stronger case? Given that those are fundamental human rights issues is it not the case that the Supreme Court is exactly the place to determine compatibility?

William Bain: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One of the strengths of the devolution settlement is that it allows a court of the seniority of the Supreme Court to make these determinations. It would have been wholly irresponsible to remove these basic protections from people in criminal cases in the way that other politicians in the Scottish Parliament sought to achieve.
	We are content with the amendments that have been made by the Lords and we will support them in the Chamber today.
	Lords amendment 9 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 10 and 11 agreed  to .

Clause 25
	 — 
	Speed limits

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 13 to 16.

David Mundell: Clause 25 allowed the Scottish Ministers to determine the national speed limit on roads in Scotland and to make regulations to specify traffic signs to indicate that limit. Clause 25 limited these powers to cars, motorcycles and vans under 3.5 tonnes.
	We listened carefully to the arguments presented by noble Lords, together with the case made by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government for the Bill to provide for the devolution of powers to set different speed limits for different classes of vehicles—for example, cars towing caravans or goods vehicles. Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give the Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland.

Ian Davidson: Will there be any restrictions under the Bill on the speed with which Scottish Government Ministers can change policy on issues such as income tax for a separate Scotland?

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the devolution of powers such as speed limits, which are devolved in the clauses to which the amendments relate, it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to determine how they use those powers and whether they apply them to themselves as they would to others.

John Stevenson: Although I fully support the Bill and what we are trying to achieve by devolving power to the Scottish Parliament, with regard to the road traffic regulations I have one concern, being the Member of Parliament for Carlisle, which is on the border—that is, that we ensure that there are sufficiently sensible signs on the border to indicate whether we should be speeding up or reducing our speed as we cross the border. I hope my right hon. Friend will ensure that the Scottish Parliament makes sure that that happens.

David Mundell: I am responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the Scottish Government acting in a sensible manner. We are seeking to devolve these powers, which apply not just to the setting of limits, but to the signage. I am a Member of Parliament for a border constituency, as is the Secretary of State. We want to ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that people know what the law is on both sides of the border. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, there are numerous legal differences between Scotland and England, which our respective constituents have managed to cope with over many years, not least the licensing laws.

Ian Davidson: Is it not the case that the Scottish Government want these powers in order to keep the speed limits the same? Just as with the monarchy,
	tax, the currency and NATO membership, they want the power to decide themselves that there will be no change.

David Mundell: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I took part in a radio programme with a member of the Scottish National party to debate the currency, and her principal argument was not over which currency Scotland should have, but about the fact that she should have the right to choose which currency; she suggested the Chinese renminbi, but I did not think that that would go down too well with the Politburo.
	Lords amendments 12 to 16 would give Scottish Ministers the power to make regulations regulating the speed of all classes of vehicle on roads in Scotland and some consequential amendments. Together with the existing provisions in clause 25, that would enable them to set a national speed limit that is different for different classes of vehicle and the power to make regulations to specify traffic signs that indicate that limit. We think that that is a sensible addition to the Bill and, as right hon. and hon. Members might know, it was promoted in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, no less.

Mark Lazarowicz: These are sensible measures and I am sure that Scottish Governments of whatever political colour will use the powers sensibly. If a significant divergence was to develop between practice in England and practice in Scotland in relation to road signage and speed limits, what steps could be taken to make the necessary changes to the Highway Code, the driving test and more generally to inform drivers on both sides of the border?

David Mundell: It will obviously be for the Scottish Government to advise on changes to signage, among other things, that they make. Changes that are specific to Scotland can be included in the Highway Code, and we currently have differential traffic regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have constituents who have fallen foul of the congestion charge that applies in London but nowhere else in the United Kingdom. There are differential traffic regulations in place at the moment, and these are well advertised.

Russell Brown: What discussions were held when it was decided that it would be the right thing to devolve the power that would allow the Scottish Government to determine what traffic should be flowing and at what speed? Was there any sense behind the decision that, for example, heavy goods vehicles should be allowed to travel at 60 mph on single track roads?

David Mundell: I share the hon. Gentlemen’s concerns about traffic speeds in our part of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, particularly on the A75. I hope that these powers will allow the Scottish Government for once to focus on Dumfries and Galloway and address such issues. They will have the powers and it will be for them to make the decisions. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth for achieving this significant amendment to the Bill. It is the only amendment made
	during the passage of the Bill that will ensure that the powers of the Scottish Parliament are increased, and I do not think that the irony of that was lost on him.

Ian Davidson: Given that speed is a product of both distance and time, has there been any further submission from the nationalists on their ambition to have Scotland in a separate time zone, because it is obvious that if it was in a separate time zone—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Three strikes and you’re out.

David Mundell: Before the debate becomes any more raucous, I should recognise that this is possibly my final opportunity to speak to the Bill, so I should like to use it principally to thank the officials in the Scotland Office who have worked so hard to deliver it. We are often the subject of scrutiny, but we are a very small Department and we, along with the Treasury and, indeed, Scottish officials, have worked to deliver this major piece of constitutional legislation. I thank all those who have participated in that process. As I said at the very start of our proceedings, I participated at the beginning of the process that led to the Bill, and I am very proud to be here at the end.

Dawn Primarolo: Not quite at the end yet.

William Bain: Lords amendments 12 to 16 would amend clauses 25 and 26 to devolve completely to the Scottish Parliament all aspects in relation to speed limits on all roads in Scotland. They follow the recommendation of the Calman commission and resolve the ambiguities and uncertainties that might have ensued from a partial devolution of the national speed limit for Scotland in respect of certain vehicles or roads.
	We are pleased to support the amendments, and I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks to the officials and team in the Scotland Office for piloting this hugely significant Bill on such a relatively smooth course through not just this House, but the other place. It now has the approval of the Scottish Parliament, too—no mean feat. On that basis, we on the Opposition Benches wish the Bill a speedy journey on its passage into law in the coming days.

Iain Stewart: I am very happy to support this group of Lords amendments and, indeed, the provisions in the Bill.
	I must confess that this is an issue on which I have changed my mind. On Second Reading, I had concerns about creating different speed limits north and south of the border. I did not say so from any great constitutional position; I was very much wearing a “road safety” hat. I serve on the Transport Committee, and road safety is an issue that we take with great seriousness. Indeed, we are conducting an inquiry into it.
	Drivers can get lulled into a sense of security on a long journey, and for long-distance drivers in particular, going up the M6 and then the M74, I was concerned that if the speed limit changed suddenly at Longtown or Gretna, depending on which way they were going, it could result in some road safety issues. But as part of
	the Committee’s inquiry we have been looking at different speed limits in different parts of the country, through managed motorway limits and other road safety measures, and by considering the evidence I have been persuaded that it is not the issue I thought it might be, so I am happy to welcome the changes before us. Rather than having the United Kingdom Government responsible for some speed limits and the Scottish Government responsible for others, it makes sense to group them under the auspices of one Government.
	My only additional point, which echoes that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), is that if we reach a situation in which there are differing speed limits on either side of the border, we will need proper signage and, through The Highway Code and the driving test, to explain those differences properly so that there is proper education and awareness.
	With that small caveat, I am happy to support the Lords amendments, and in the last few seconds before I am cut off in my prime, I too congratulate and thank the officials who put together the Bill.

Anne McGuire: I add my support for the Lords amendment. It makes sense. We have to realise that drivers of all kinds cope with different speed limits, even within one county. This Bill has had a long journey, but there has also been a long journey for those of us who, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were here in 1997—
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 12.
	Question agreed to.
	Lords amendment 12 accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
	Lords amendments 13 to 26 agreed to.

National Planning Policy Framework

[Relevant Documents: Oral and written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, on Sustainable Development in the National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1480; the Eighth Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, on The National Planning Policy Framework, HC 1526, and the Government response, Cm  8322 .]

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the National Planning Policy Framework.
	As I was saying on Tuesday evening, Madam Deputy Speaker—[ Laughter. ] Much as I enjoyed the debate that we began on Tuesday, I think that it would try the patience of the House if I repeated my speech, so I will take that as being on the record.
	May I take the opportunity to say two things in opening this part of the debate? First, I convey to the shadow Secretary of State the congratulations of the whole House. He is not with us today because he is attending the wedding of his son. I am sure that we are all united in sending him our congratulations.
	Secondly, I will mention some less happy news, since this is a debate that concerns local government. The sad news was conveyed to us this morning that the leader of Tonbridge and Malling council, Councillor Mark Worrall OBE, died in an untimely way this morning. He was an inspirational, effective and brilliant leader of local government. The whole of local government in Britain will miss his wise counsel. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in paying condolences to his family. Sadly for us in Kent, that news follows the recent death of county councillor Kevin Lynes. Kent has lost two titans of local government.
	To return to the matter of planning policy, I am happy to conclude my remarks and to allow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), at long last, to share her views with us.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: On behalf of the Opposition, I echo the Minister’s sentiments about Councillor Mark Worrall. It is deeply sad news and this is a sad day for local government.
	It is unfortunate that the debate on the national planning policy framework was squeezed by parliamentary business on Tuesday and is being squeezed again today. A number of Members who wished to be in the Chamber to contribute to this debate have not been able to make it because of the short notice. Although I am grateful that the Government found time to hold this debate in the House, two hours is not sufficient to do justice to this major change in planning policy. That should be noted.
	On Tuesday night, the Minister sought to sell the NPPF in his usual erudite way. However, surely even he does not believe that everything is rosy in the NPPF garden. A number of challenges remain for the planning system, despite the many amendments to the draft framework. It is hardly surprising that changes were made, given the huge outcry following its publication
	from a range of individuals and organisations, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Town and Country Planning Association and the National Trust. Like us, those organisations are all concerned with the quality of our built environment and the need to protect our countryside. They fought an outstanding campaign to have important changes made to the draft, and we acknowledge that the Minister listened to the concerns and that the final document was an improvement on the ill-thought-through first version.
	Despite the changes, however, the question today is whether the NPPF, as a blueprint for planning policy, is truly fit for purpose. The answer is definitely not. I will outline for the Minister some weaknesses that remain in the document. Given the immense criticism of his first attempt, the significant redrafting that followed and the remaining weaknesses, it is clear that the process of reform, taken as a whole, was shambolic even by the Government’s standards of incompetence.
	First, the Minister has made much of strengthening the definition of sustainable development, and indeed the more comprehensive definition that we and many others argued for has now been incorporated in the NPPF along with five principles of sustainable development. However, it is not clear how local authorities will apply that definition in practice when they determine planning applications. Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the NPPF are rather woolly, even by the Minister’s standards.
	Secondly, much has also been made of the strengthening in the final version of the requirement for development to happen on brownfield land first. Since its publication, however, many have described the assurances on the subject as “paper-thin”. The NPPF only expects authorities to “encourage” development on brownfield land first. That is significantly weaker than the Labour policy of development being prioritised on brownfield sites. Nor is it clear what will happen if authorities do not encourage the development of brownfield land first, or whether they will have to apply any sequential tests or produce any evidence in that regard.
	Thirdly, the existence of transitional arrangements is welcome, but two major issues remain. The first is that most commentators do not consider one year long enough for local authorities to get their plans up to speed. The second is that the announcement on guidance has created more of the unwelcome confusion that has characterised the whole review of planning policy. The Minister announced that all guidance in planning policy guidance notes and planning policy statements was being abolished, then he said it was not, and now he says it is being reviewed. Which is it? I would appreciate an answer from him. Further clarity on the status of the guidance would be most welcome.
	Now for the key question that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government posed in its excellent report on the NPPF. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Committee, is in the Chamber. That question was whether the brevity of the NPPF had created greater clarity. The Minister must accept that the answer of planners is a resounding no. A recent survey of town planners revealed that 86% believed the NPPF would lead to more appeals because of the lack of certainty in the planning system and the vagueness of much of its language. No wonder that many are calling it a planning lawyer’s dream.

Nicky Morgan: Perhaps the hon. Lady will come on to this, but the planning system is in place not just for planners but for the people and residents. I am sorry that I was late for the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to read some planning policy guidance and having difficulty with some of the language in it. Having simple language in a 52-page document will allow residents of all our constituencies to understand the planning system in much more detail than under the old, complicated system, so that they can make their case.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Lady is right that the guidance must be interpreted by local communities as well as planners. We are saying that brevity should have led to clear language, but it has often led to obscure language, which will make it equally difficult for local communities and planners to argue a clear case.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Lady give examples of that obscure language? One thing that struck me and the parish councils to which I have spoken is the simple, clear and normal English language used in the document. They applaud that because it is in stark contrast to some of the Dickensian language used in most planning and other legislation in the past.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Many commentators have written about how vague a lot of the language in the NPPF is and we have rehearsed it many times in previous discussions. My point is that far from increasing the power of communities, which has been much championed by the Minister, the NPPF could lead to even more decisions being made by the Planning Inspectorate, which is removed from local communities.
	On local communities, the principle of encouraging more neighbourhood planning is one that all hon. Members share. The Minister was right on Tuesday to point out that I am very much in support of neighbourhood planning—I am encouraging local groups in Durham to get involved—but he should acknowledge that neighbourhood planning is not new, because parish councils have been undertaking it for a number of years. Indeed, I have been involved in drawing up local plans in Durham with local groups for many years.

Marcus Jones: I am heartened by the hon. Lady’s and the Labour party’s enthusiasm for neighbourhood planning and for encouraging councils and communities to take it on. Will she therefore send a message to Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council and ask her Labour councillors to engage with the local community in Nuneaton and allow it to take up neighbourhood planning?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman has made that plea very well himself.
	Neighbourhood planning is something that all hon. Members support, but if the Minister wills the end, he must also will the means. Neighbourhood planning is labour intensive, and, if undertaken correctly, will place considerable demands on local authorities, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) pointed out. If neighbourhood planning is to work beyond affluent
	neighbourhoods, it will need to be properly supported. What plans does the Minister have to resource local authorities and other organisations such as Locality and Planning Aid in the long term to make neighbourhood planning a reality in all communities, including disadvantaged ones?

Barry Sheerman: Are we going to be consistent? All hon. Members want genuine, positive neighbourhood engagement in planning, but the trouble is that historically, too often, such engagement has been dressed up nimbyism. The worst case of dressed up nimbyism that I know of concerns Conservative councillors on Kirklees council in Huddersfield, who switch and swap all over the place only for political advantage, not for the good of the community or good planning.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hope the local community in my hon. Friend’s constituency has heard that point on Conservative councillors.
	I am making a plea to the Minister to ensure that neighbourhood planning can be a reality in all areas and for all communities.
	Lastly, I come to the duty to co-operate. As the Minister will be well aware, there is growing concern that England does not have a national spatial plan, and that planning beyond the local authority level will be very difficult. Yet strategic issues, such as housing, transport, waste and energy, often need to be taken beyond that level. The Minister will claim that the duty to co-operate addresses this issue, but it is totally unclear what will happen if the co-operation fails or never takes place.
	When taken together, all of the above shows that despite the changes made to the NPPF there are still a number of concerns—and the above list is by no means exhaustive. I could continue with examples, such as how, despite the Minister’s reinstatement of Labour’s successful “town centre first” policy, the lack of guidance continues, or the changes to the assessment of housing need, for which the definition has been improved but the method of implementation is again absent.
	We will continue to monitor what is happening in practice. If the NPPF is stalling the growth in jobs and housing that we so desperately need, and failing to protect the environment that we all love, we will say so. Cutting pages from our planning guidance is no substitute for a proper economic policy focused on growth, and that is what we need the NPPF to deliver.

Stephen Mosley: Planning is, quite rightly, a very sensitive issue. It is about conserving and improving our existing habitat. It is about preparation for the challenges and demands of an increasing population. It requires measured and well balanced consideration, both of what currently exists and of what is required for the future. But it is also about preservation and the delicate matter of safeguards. I believe that the national planning policy framework delivers on all of those important considerations
	There is no doubt that the planning system needed simplifying and making more accessible, so we have moved away from a cumbersome, bureaucratic mountain of guidance, some 1,300 pages in total, to a leaner, more flexible and clearer document of some 50 pages. But it was essential that in doing so, the long-term sustainability of our planning system was not sacrificed, and that is why I am delighted that, from root to branch, the central thread running throughout the NPPF is the doctrine of sustainable development, enshrining at the heart of our planning system the principle that growth must never be achieved at the expense of future generations.
	Unlike the shadow Minister, I commend the manner in which the Government’s consultation on the draft framework was conducted. The most telling tale is that those organisations that did express concerns about the draft framework, including the National Trust, English Heritage, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the long list of organisations name-checked by the Minister on Tuesday evening, have all welcomed the changes that have been incorporated into the final framework. Dame Fiona Reynolds, director-general of the National Trust said:
	“All these changes improve the document and give it a better tone and balance”.
	One of the most contentious issues of the planning system in my own constituency, and I am sure in the constituencies of a great many right hon. and hon. Members, is that of green belt protection. As the NPPF explicitly states, the Government attach great importance to green belts, the essential characteristics of which are their openness and their permanence. I represent a small city enclosed by green belt, and this commitment by the Government is extremely welcome news for many of my constituents. While green belts have their own character, they also play an essential role in preserving the special character of towns and cities across the country, including my own city of Chester. Green belts also represent a necessary check on unrestricted urban sprawl.

Nigel Mills: Will my hon. Friend join me in urging councils that are currently consulting on potentially adding sites that are in the green belt to their local plan to stop doing so now that they have seen the final guidance? They should think, “We are not going to change the green belt because we don’t need to. Let’s look at brownfield sites first.”

Stephen Mosley: I have huge sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. Green belts are there to prevent not only urban sprawl but the merging of neighbouring towns. They provide much-needed safeguards to protect the countryside from encroachment and indirectly assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the use of brownfield sites. The NPPF makes it clear that
	“inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”

Andrew George: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. On getting the balance right, which is part of his theme, of course developers have the right to appeal when they believe that a decision has been wrongly taken. Does he agree that it would be welcome if the Government were to consider whether,
	in certain circumstances, there might be an opportunity for a third-party right of appeal against developments causing concern within local communities?

Stephen Mosley: Of course they currently have a right of appeal, but it is via judicial review, which can be difficult and very expensive. Nevertheless, that right is there. I personally think we have the right balance now, but it is something we need to consider.
	In addition to green belts, the fundamental importance that the framework places on all green spaces is extremely reassuring. I particularly welcome paragraphs 73 and 74, which enshrine in the planning system the intrinsic value of open spaces and playing fields. The document reads:
	“Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.”
	The commitment in the framework that all open spaces lost to development must be replaced by “equivalent or better provision” will be received warmly by everyone in this country, young and old, who recognises the importance of these spaces for our local communities.
	Furthermore, the introduction in paragraphs 76 to 78 of the new local green space designations adds even greater weight to the importance of the local neighbourhood plans introduced under the Localism Act 2011. The NPPF is unequivocal in its defence of green spaces and will ensure they are there to be enjoyed for generations to come.
	Representing a city steeped in history, I am obviously concerned to ensure that the importance of heritage is recognised in the planning system. Heritage should be seen not as a barrier to growth but as an intrinsic part of it.

Tristram Hunt: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of the virtues of heritage. Will he clarify whether he voted for VAT to be put on alterations to listed buildings and churches?

Stephen Mosley: I will stick to the NPPF debate, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	In Chester, we do not insist on the preservation of our Roman city walls, our Roman amphitheatre, our mediaeval roads or our Georgian townhouses simply because they are old. We insist on their protection because they are what make Chester Chester. Planning is much more than a tool to cater for short-term demand. It must always consider the long-term consequences. Our heritage and historic environment are unique and irreplaceable, so I welcome the statement in the NPPF that
	“Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment”.
	Also, when determining planning applications, developers and local authorities will have responsibilities to ensure that the development does not adversely impact on heritage assets or their setting. That protection will be particularly welcome in Chester, where almost every development will have an impact on our unique historic environment. The Minister and his colleagues have worked closely with English Heritage throughout the formation of the framework, and I am delighted with the importance that it places on conservation and the enjoyment of our nation’s heritage.
	I welcome the importance the framework places on the need to provide quality homes. Building homes is vital to the sustainability of our country, but of equal, if not greater, importance is the type of home we build. As the Minister wrote in the forward to the NPPF,
	“confidence in development itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity”.
	All too often, both in the private and the social housing sectors, the temptation has been to cram as many homes as possible into as small a space as possible. Blocks of flats have come to symbolise housing development in Chester and, I am sure, in many other parts of the country, but that is not what people want or need. What is required and wanted are good quality family homes, yet these are the types of properties in least supply.
	The statement in the NPPF that local authorities should objectively assess the need for market and affordable housing in the housing market is hugely significant. However, that is one area of the framework that could be difficult for the Minister and his Department to monitor. I encourage him to keep his sights keenly focused on the housing developments that local authorities are providing, to ensure that the housing needs of any particular area are being assessed and subsequently acted on.
	As I have said, planning is a sensitive issue. The national planning policy framework lays the foundations for sustainability, growth, protection and preservation, but most importantly, it provides clarity. The NPPF is an excellent document. The consultation on which the final document was based was carried out to a standard to which all consultations should aspire. The Minister is to be congratulated, and the framework should be welcomed by all.

Clive Betts: First, I want to note the very unsatisfactory nature of the debate on this important issue. Our debate has taken place in two bits at the end of two days, and the Government’s business managers could have found more time for it over the past few weeks. I know that the Minister was also keen to have the debate.
	On behalf of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, I would like to express our thanks to the Minister for the process that he went through, for informing the Select Committee at an early stage of his intention to produce a draft national planning policy framework, for inviting the Committee to look at the proposals and for listening carefully to our views and accepting in full or in part 30 of our 35 recommendations. I suppose we could look at this in two ways: either the Select Committee’s report was excellent, or the draft document was somewhat flawed. Perhaps it was a bit of both. I do not want to be churlish, however. There have been distinct improvements, which we welcome, particularly in relation to the definition of sustainable development.
	I also want to thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for the work that her Committee did, and for ensuring that the presumption in favour of sustainable development was set into the framework of the local plan, because the local plan must be at the heart of any plan-led system. There are some concerns about how far the issue of
	brownfield priority was taken, but the test will be in the practical application of the framework. Another welcome measure is the incorporation of offices and other development, as well as retail, into the sequential test to protect district, town and city centres. Those and other changes in the final document are very welcome.
	I do not have time to go through all the points in the document, as our time is constrained and other Members want to speak, but I shall draw out one or two areas in which things could go wrong, or that are in need of clarification or perhaps further review at some stage. That is not to say that there are not other good things in the document, but I want to draw out the issues that need further testing or scrutiny.
	The test of this document is not whether it is better than the first draft but whether it is better than the existing guidance that has been in operation up to now. The test is also whether it delivers better planning for communities and individuals, and for developers as well, because they are important in creating homes and jobs. What test do the Government want to apply to judge the success of the system? Is it a requirement to meet the Housing Minister’s target to build more housing in this country than we were building before the recession? Is it a requirement to ensure that we develop enough renewable energy projects to hit our climate change targets? I assume that those are the Government’s objectives. However, during our discussions on this matter, in the debate on the initial draft and in the comments on the Minister’s statement, an awful lot of Members on the Government Benches seemed to be saying, “We want a planning system that stops development in our areas.” I just worry that there might be some conflict—

John Howell: No, that is not true.

Clive Betts: Well, we have seen a lot of letters to newspapers saying, “Please stop all these wind turbines being put up”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I got an immediate response to that one. How, in the end, does a planning system relate all the individual local decisions and wishes of local communities to the Government’s national targets to deal with climate change and house the people of this country?

Chris Heaton-Harris: rose —

Clive Betts: I thought the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) might respond to that question.

Chris Heaton-Harris: As a former Member of the European Parliament I can remember the directive that we passed, but it does not tell a country how to achieve its renewable energy targets by specifying which sectors it should promote; it simply sets a target, and there is an implication to hit it. Allowing local people to choose which types of renewable energy they would like to see in their local community would bring on more renewable energy projects, not fewer.

Clive Betts: In the end, I am a committed localist. I believe in consultation and taking account of the wishes of local communities. All localists—not just Ministers—face a challenge: if the sum total of local decisions does not
	add up to the national requirements on issues such as climate change or the number of homes, what should the Government do about it?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman poses a very difficult question. He knows that it is almost intractable, and I know that Ministers have been wrestling with it—when his party was in government, as well as now. In Cornwall, for example, the housing stock has more than doubled in the last 40 years, yet the housing problems of local people have become significantly worse. It is not that the locals in that area are nimbys, as growth has been faster there than almost anywhere else in the country; the problem has been that it has been the wrong type of housing, which has not met housing need. We thus need the power of local people to determine the kind of housing that is necessary, not simply to meet a number target.

Clive Betts: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point. He has a long history of arguing for more of the right sort of housing for his community; I would not accuse him of nimbyism at all. There is, however, an issue for the Government to think about.
	It is helpful that the Minister has kept in place the technical guidance about the assessment of housing need, so that there is a consistency up and down the country. It would also be helpful if he could write to hon. Members, and place his response in the Library, to explain exactly what technical guidance has been left in place to date, what his plans are to review it, in conjunction with various professional bodies and the Local Government Association, and what the time scale for the process will be. It was an important decision, as I say, to leave the technical guidance in place, and it would be helpful to know more about what is going on with respect to it.
	Although the Government have not gone quite as far as the Select Committee wanted, I welcome the fact that local authorities will have to come forward yearly to show in their monitoring reports what they are doing about the important duty to co-operate. There will be challenges for authorities that cannot meet their housing need because of land constraints, as they will need neighbouring authorities to take house building on to meet housing needs. Without proper co-operation between those authorities and in the absence of the top-down targets from the regional spatial strategies, whose removal I know Government Members welcome, some areas are going to have real problems meeting housing needs in a constructive and co-ordinated way.
	Ministers and Government Members need to accept that, however much they welcome the changes they have brought in, any change in the planning system will almost certainly lead to uncertainty and cause an initial slowdown in decision making. That is almost inevitable, so we should not be surprised if things do not go smoothly at first. Almost certainly, too, there will be unintended consequences from what they are putting forward. There will be misreading of the wording; inspectors will come to decisions on appeal that do not conform with the Minister’s aspirations; judicial reviews will reach different conclusions from those Ministers, local MPs or local councils might want. At some point, the Minister will have to put in place a review system and perhaps bring in some changes, simply to take account in practice of those sorts of issues. This is a technical
	issue, but it could be crucial to how the system works. In the end, how it works in practice rather than what it says on a piece of paper is what will count.
	I welcome the idea of having transitional arrangements, and it is good that the Minister agreed them with the Local Government Association. That is very positive. Let us look at some of these transitional arrangements. For example:
	“For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.”
	What does a “limited degree of conflict” mean? There is an awful lot of room for an awful lot of lawyers to argue about that and make quite a bit of money. In the next paragraph, it states that
	“after this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies and existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.
	What does “degree of consistency” with the framework mean? Ministers may think they know what it means, but lawyers may have a different view and two lawyers may have two different views, and that can lead to an awful lot of expense, delay and, perhaps, the wrong decisions.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Betts: I will, but for the last time, because I know that other Members want to contribute.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that two lawyers will have a number of different views.

Clive Betts: I stand corrected on that point.
	The fact that some of the wording is open to interpretation may cause real problems. It may mean that, ultimately, that the wishes of local communities are not adhered to.
	Most of the complaints made in evidence to the Select Committee about the planning system were not about guidance and policy, but about process relating to individual applications. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy with the Government in regard to the slow pace at which local plans have been put in place. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 resulted from the fact that local authorities were not adopting unitary development plans quickly enough. We now know that local plans are not in place in about half the authorities concerned.
	How can we change that for the future? The Minister has gone some way towards accepting our proposal. We have talked about the “light touch review”. If local plans are to be at the heart of the process, it is ridiculous that we should be dealing with plans many of which are 20 years old. That is not acceptable. We must find a way of bringing those plans up to date more rapidly. I do not know whether the system of local development frameworks, strategies and site allocation plans is too complicated to provide the necessary flexibility, but the Select Committee may wish to return to the issue, and the Government may wish to work along with us in exploring the technical issues further.
	Everyone is in favour of neighbourhood plans, but I am worried about the resource implications. Such plans will not feature in poorer areas with fewer resources. It also worries me slightly that people see them as a way of stopping development. Apparently they must be consistent and
	“conform to the strategic priorities within the Local Plan.”
	What exactly does that mean? I think that it provides more room for legal argument.
	In the end, what is important is not what the NPPF actually says, but how that is interpreted and what happens on the ground. At some point the Government will have to explain, in their terms, what a successful planning system will achieve, and how they will monitor it in order to display that success in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. This is a very short debate, and I want to accommodate as many speakers as I possibly can. I know that it is not ideal, but I am going to introduce a four-minute limit, with the usual penalty time of one minute for each of the first two interventions. The winding-up speeches will begin at 5.40 pm.

Caroline Nokes: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the future of planning policy, which is a topic of great interest in my constituency. I am sure that I am not alone in having received many representations on the draft NPPF, but, coinciding as it did with the publication of the borough council's core strategy, it has been of particular interest in Romsey and Southampton North, and especially to residents of the market town of Romsey and the surrounding villages.
	In many respects, Romsey and Southampton North could be described as a microcosm of the whole country, exhibiting both the benefits and the problems associated with rural, urban and suburban dwelling. Nothing demonstrates those competing dynamics better than planning policy. I assure the Minister that the revised NPPF has allayed many of the concerns of Romsey residents, and it is a vast improvement on the consultation draft. However, it leaves some questions unanswered. I hope—in the spirit of constructive debate—-to present the perspective of a diverse and mixed constituency.
	The shift in the Government’s approach to planning since 2010 is welcome. It is now a case of Government doing something for local communities rather than to them. The revision clearly shows that the Government have listened. Of course, the balancing act between the competing desires to protect the countryside and, at the same time, to make possible appropriate and sustainable development is the devil's own job, and I have considerable sympathy for the Minister and his team. Twelve years as a borough councillor taught me that a simplistic position on planning is always ill advised, and that polarised debates do little to help. On one hand, we must protect our natural environment; on the other, we must make possible development that will provide housing and jobs.
	In the context of the March revision, I welcome the retention of the clauses that seek to protect the green belt and other designated landscapes. However, we have
	a small problem in what is arguably one of the most beautiful counties in the land, Hampshire. There is very little green belt there, and the green belt that does exist is designed to protect the New Forest from the spread of the conurbation of Bournemouth, which is of course in an entirely different county. Many of my constituents believe that Hampshire has a great deal of green belt, but it simply does not; in fact, it has almost none. We would like an increase in our green belt.
	I therefore have some major concerns about land designation. How can we make it easier to establish green belt, to prevent the coalescence of settlements and to make sure our cities, towns and villages retain their individual characters? I am an unashamed fan of the green belt, so I am disappointed that paragraph 82 of the framework states that the “general extent” of the green belt is already established. The conditions under which new green belt can be designated are exceptionally restrictive, and therefore the ability of local communities to protect their boundaries and identity in that way is undermined. I am keen to hear why the Government’s default position seems to be against the creation of more green belt. I can assure the Minister that on the edges of Southampton, and in particular from the village of Nursling, there is a clear call for additional green belt.
	I want to say a few words about “ordinary countryside”. I assure the Minister that, especially in Test valley, there is no such thing as “ordinary countryside”; it is all quite extraordinary. I am pleased that the intrinsic value of the countryside is being recognised in the revision, but I urge the Minister to make sure that there is a clear description of how it is to be valued so that those residents who live in beautiful parts of the Test valley can be sure that the area will be protected for its diversity and landscape.
	Finally, I assure the Opposition that in Southampton there has been massive enthusiasm for the production of neighbourhood plans, and the people there think that it is not only the chocolate-box villages of the Test valley that will benefit.

Joan Walley: Insufficient time is available to us to debate this subject. The Government business managers have failed to provide enough time to discuss the NPPF. I regret that our deliberations on the detailed work that has been done in at least two Select Committees is being so rushed, and that raises further issues about how today’s statement will be followed up.
	On sustainable development, the Environmental Audit Committee looked into the question of what will be the parliamentary process in following up on the new revised 50-page draft of the NPPF. Will the Minister tell us what sort of scrutiny he envisages? I, for one, was very disappointed that we did not receive early warning of what was in the statement when it first came before the House. It would be very helpful if the Government would say how future proposals will be scrutinised by Members in both the Chamber and Select Committees.
	One of the key problems in the NPPF is that the Chancellor talks about sustainable economic development, but that is different from sustainable development in terms of planning. The view tends to be that if there is a
	business or future investment in three or four years, then that is sustainable development. However, we are looking at how we can embed environmental issues and issues of social justice into the future of the entire green economy. That is an important point in respect of the NPPF.
	It is equally important that the Government should, in their cross-cutting agenda at Cabinet level, look not only at what the Treasury is doing, but at how the Green Book initiative is influencing national infrastructure investment and how that then relates to planning at the local level. Such matters have not been properly addressed.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for giving the Environmental Audit Committee the opportunity to look at these issues in detail. We were restricting ourselves to looking at the sustainable aspects of this topic. Our report—published in October 2011, and included in the Communities and Local Government Committee report—looked at what we mean by sustainable development and how that definition could be tightened in the NPPF. We felt that if we could do that, it would help to address all the other concerns from around the country—from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Trust and other organisations—about how we link things to sustainable development.
	We made various recommendations, which the Government have taken on board to some extent, although the proof of that will be in whether they really have done that and how that pans out in planning decisions around the country. One issue we are concerned about is resources. We asked the Government to set out what resources they felt local planning authorities needed if they were to be truly able to come up with a local plan that got people collaborating, across business, civil society, local councils and everything else, to look at the long-term future of what was needed. However, I do not have the time now to talk in detail about all the issues that were raised.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like many hon. Members, I am sure, I spent a good number of years as a councillor, and planning occupied most of my time. Much of that was because of the top-down approach, which local residents felt was always going against them and their communities. I sat on a planning committee and sometimes we felt powerless, so it was no wonder that our residents felt that way.
	When I think of how my constituency has changed over the years, it is really quite staggering. The expanding population and the desirability of the location make it an attractive proposition, coupled with the fact that we have a lot of former factories and mill sites that have closed, and which now present us with a host of new brownfield sites. The old companies in Guiseley, Menston, Farsley and Pudsey have all gone and the sites have been turned into residential developments, which has put huge strain on local infrastructure. I remember as a councillor warning that we would run out of school places and being reassured by the education department that it was fine and that there were plenty, but lo and behold, three years later the department came and said, “Councillor, we’ve got a problem—we haven’t got any school places left.” Similarly, GP practices were struggling, but the greatest contention was caused by traffic. The
	number of new developments in the area resulted in congestion on our roads and the trains serving the constituency being absolutely packed at peak times.
	All those factors contributed to local people’s resentment towards the planning system. Too many employment sites were lost to residential developments. In addition, the dreadful regional spatial strategy housing targets put real pressure on our communities. People felt powerless. They had no say in the future of their area, and they were baffled by the complex guidance put before them.
	I welcome the NPPF, although when I first saw it I thought it would put me on a collision course with the Minister. However, my right hon. Friend has been true to his word: he has listened to the concerns that many of us have and he has changed the NPPF. That must be welcomed. However, there are a few questions I want to ask.
	I have a large residents group in my constituency, Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development, which works tirelessly on development. WARD is keen to take part in creating the neighbourhood plan, because we do not have parish councils in all our towns. I would like to know where we are going to find the money to fund those plans, because although there is interest in them, there is concern about where the money will come from.
	There are other improvements to the NPPF—for example, housing targets can now be set by local councils, which is an important development. Even so, we have massive challenges ahead of us. We need to build more houses for local families who want to stay in the areas that their families live in, so we face a difficult balancing act., because if we are not careful, the result could be further urban sprawl. The environment around my constituency is incredibly important; it creates a nice green barrier between Leeds and Bradford, and I would hate to see it lost. However, it is not yet clear to me how the NPPF will help those communities to prepare for the infrastructure that is needed for all these houses, or how we are going to protect green-belt land when we do not have any brownfield sites left. How do we marry those things up? I have yet to see an answer to that.

Tristram Hunt: This week, we heard the extraordinary statistic that only 56 affordable homes had been built in the entirety of London in the past six months. As a result, Newham council has been trying to entice housing associations across the country, including in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), to take families on housing benefit off its lists and into different parts of the UK. All that points to the major housing and planning crisis that the UK faces.

Lyn Brown: I am looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s speech on planning policy, but may I say that the problem that Newham council has faced is not only the lack of affordable homes, but the housing benefit changes that have been forced on it by this Government?

Tristram Hunt: I am very grateful for the intervention, which highlights exactly what we warned of: such changes need to be managed properly. In that context, what we
	hoped for from the Government was a considered and rational strategy for planning reforms to safeguard our great towns, cities and countryside, while ensuring economic growth. Instead, what we received was a botched draft planning policy framework, complete with ugly denunciations of such great English institutions as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and of anyone else who dared to question the Government’s damaging proposals. We expected more from the Minister. Instead, as Fiona Reynolds, the director general of the National Trust, put it, the Government’s statements were “arrogant”. She said:
	“The language exposed some of the Government’s failure to connect with how people feel.”
	We now have the finished document, and I am happy to support some of the major U-turns the Government have adopted, such as the explicit recognition of the value of the countryside as a whole; the strengthened protection for the green belt; and the more balanced, if still ambiguous, definition of “sustainable development”. Those are all to the good, but there are some worrying omissions.
	Part of the great urban regeneration story of the past 10 years, under Labour Governments, has been a specific programme of encouraging brownfield development. Last year, some 76% of new dwellings were built on brownfield sites, which is an increase on the 55% in 1989. The figure for Stoke-on-Trent was 90% and the one for Liverpool was 91%. It is therefore worrying that the final draft of the NPPF talks only of “encouraging” the effective use of brownfield land, rather than, as Labour did, “prioritising” it. That does not amount to a robust “brownfield first” policy and is a weakening of the guidance in previous regulation. Hon. Members who are concerned about their towns and city centres would do well to reflect on that: an encouragement is not an obligation. As a result, and with no explicit brownfield development targets, there will be serious scope for legal battle involving developers, who will appeal to sections of the NPPF that emphasise economic viability and deliverability over sustainable brownfield development. That is all the more frustrating given that there are almost 62,000 hectares of brownfield or previously developed land in England ready for building on.
	I am glad that the Government have taken on board the Labour party’s criticisms of the draft framework in relation to the sequential test on all large retail development. I make a general point about policy development by this Government when I say that we are here to help: if they listen to us at an earlier stage, they can get rid of some of these complexities. I met my local planning officers at Stoke-on-Trent city council last week, and they were adamant that we would not see the kind of urban regeneration we want in Hanley without a proper system of sequential testing.

Anna Soubry: Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he join me in urging Labour councillors in Broxtowe not to accept a housing target that would result in 4,000 houses being built on green-belt land?

Tristram Hunt: I am very grateful for the intervention, as I am an adamant defender of the green belt; almost like an Israeli settler. I believe that we should not take any parts of it.
	To complete the point I was making before the intervention, in view of the number of high street shops that are unoccupied, we want to see a much greater focus on the regeneration of our high streets.
	All of this debate points to a broader truth: the Government are underwritten by an ideological aversion to state regulation. Because of the monstrous failure of their economic policy, sadly revealed this week with a double-dip recession made in Downing street and £150 billion of extra borrowing, they have been thrashing round for excuses for economic decline. The Treasury stumbled on the idea that planning was stopping growth, but we know that good planning is no impediment to growth. Poor planning and a lack of planning as in Ireland and Spain have not resulted in the kind of economic growth that we would like. The Government would be better advised to devise a decent strategy for sustainable economic growth, rather than blame the planning system.
	Secondly, the hostility towards proper regulation has turned a planning document into a lawyers’ charter. For all the clever wheeze of cutting down more than 1,000 pages of guidance, the end result might be far more paperwork than the Minister imagines, thanks to law suits, legal cases and casework. Indeed, we know that a survey of town planners revealed that lawyers are expecting much more work from the framework than they have had previously.
	Finally, I welcome the explicit recognition given by the planning policy framework that the historic environment makes a positive contribution to society, the economy, our culture and our environment, but where does the Budget’s plans to slap VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings fit with that? May we please have some joined-up government? If we believe in the historic environment, may we not have this ridiculous addition to the Budget?

Daniel Poulter: I rise to speak in support of the Government’s national planning policy framework. I want to put on record my constituents’ gratitude to the Government for listening to some real concerns about the need to protect greenfield sites and for the presumption to be in favour of brownfield development.
	Before I make my substantive points—I know that we have only a brief time available—let me address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He made a good speech, but it appears to me that Labour is trying to rewrite history now that it is in opposition. He made some good points, as did the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), about the previous Government’s laudable and commendable intention to prioritise brownfield development over greenfield development, which is absolutely right. There is a difference, however, between rhetoric and reality, which this Government have recognised in the planning policy framework. In north Ipswich, thanks to the previous Government’s centrally driven housing targets, 15,000 new homes were to be built against the wishes of my constituents by Labour-run Ipswich borough council. The plan is still to develop them, and the decision was made because
	of the previous Government’s planning policies and decisions. That is not protecting greenfield sites; it is ensuring that they are developed. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central quite rightly said that he wanted that to be avoided, and I want the same. We must ensure that when we can develop brownfield sites, as we can in the centre of Ipswich, they are developed effectively and in a way that provides family homes and affordable homes so that young people can get on to the housing ladder.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the percentage of development that occurred on brownfield sites was massively improved during the period of Labour Government.

Daniel Poulter: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My key point is that of course it is important to develop brownfield sites, and the previous Government did that, but unfortunately, as some of my colleagues have highlighted, flats were built on those brownfield sites rather than affordable family homes. My constituents in north Ipswich and many of my colleagues’ constituents want affordable family homes so that people who live locally can stay living locally and so that we can help young families on to the housing ladder. That is key. The previous Government’s intentions were laudable, but the practicalities did not work.
	I want to make three points in support of the framework. First, it is a good document because it simplifies the planning system. It is clearly better to have 50 pages of guidance than to have about 1,000 pages. It is better and easier for my constituents to understand how the planning system works, it is easier for developers to understand it, and it is much easier for local authorities, when they are discussing planning issues with residents, to communicate those issues when there are 50 pages of national policy guidance.
	Secondly, there is a clear presumption and protection that as Conservatives we prioritise, and have always prioritised, brownfield development over greenfield development. In many parts of the country, including central Suffolk, we have valuable farming land that would suffer directly as a result of greenfield development. We in Suffolk value farming and agriculture and the amenity that the green fields around Ipswich, for example, provide for local communities. People can take their families out at the weekend and enjoy the countryside. If we continue with Ipswich borough council’s policy of pushing for greenfield development on those sites, we will lose valuable agricultural land as well as valuable community land that is enjoyed by local people from Ipswich.
	Finally, I come to sustainable development. The document contains a much clearer definition of sustainable development, which is a good thing. We need development where there are infrastructure and jobs, and to make sure that we bring affordable housing on stream. The best way to do that is to tie development to key infrastructure projects, as we shall see in the green enterprise zone in East Anglia at Great Yarmouth and Waveney. We accept that in that area there will be houses, which go hand in hand with jobs, key road and rail infrastructure and the broadband infrastructure that the Government are giving us, as well as money for schools and local hospitals. That is good sustainable
	development. My constituents support the Government in what they are trying to do, not least the protection against the development by Ipswich borough council of the northern fringe of Ipswich.

Nick Raynsford: The ultimate test of the NPPF will be the outcomes it delivers, not the remarks made by people who were so relieved that the latest draft was less bad than its predecessor that they provided those quotes that the Minister enjoyed giving us the other evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made the point that we are debating this framework in the week in which the economy has gone back into recession, which in large part reflects the poor state of the construction industry, within which the housing sector is particularly badly affected. I shall come on to that. Two days ago, the Minister of State sought to deny the disastrous state of house building in Britain, which has been seriously aggravated by the uncertainty and confusion that have existed since the Government began to tinker with the planning system in summer 2010.
	The Minister claimed that there has been a 25% recovery in housing since the recession. Let us look at those figures. He is right in that there has been a recovery from the depths of the recession. What he needs to bear in mind is the fact that that recovery took place throughout 2009 and in the first six months of 2010.

Tristram Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on Ministers’ approach to information and statistics, given that this week we heard an extraordinary account from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who thinks that rents in London are falling?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was going to say that I hoped that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), for whom I have considerable respect, does not go down the same path as his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who shows a certain levity with regard to his respect for the truthfulness of statistics.
	As I was saying, there was a recovery, and the second quarter of 2010—which, as the Under-Secretary knows rather well, is the period in which there was a change of Government: in the first part of that quarter we were under a Labour Government, in the second part, we were under a Conservative Government, although I do not think that even he would claim that the Conservative Government were responsible for the figures in that quarter—was the high point. The recovery reached a peak of 30,880 units in that quarter. Since then, the housing market has been static or falling. The best output of new starts in any quarter was 26,980 in the third quarter of 2010, going down to just 20,900 starts in the last quarter of 2011—the last quarter for which figures are available.
	That, I am afraid, is the record. Since the Government’s changes to planning policy and their disastrous cuts in investment in social housing, we have seen a collapse in confidence and poor output figures for housing. Planning consents—the lead indicators—are equally bad. Figures
	compiled by Glenigan for the Home Builders Federation show that in calendar year 2011 only 115,000 new homes received planning permission, which is the lowest level since the survey began in 2007. The figures for the end of 2011 are particularly bad—the Home Builders Federation itself highlights the extent to which the number of homes that received consent in the fourth quarter of 2011, 27,000, was down on the third quarter and down on the previous year’s equivalent quarter. The figures are seriously bad.
	The Federation of Master Builders reminds us that the figures for new social house building in the first three months of this year are
	“the most negative balance since the survey began”,
	and work loads in the private new build housing sector are also declining, with 55% of firms indicating work loads smaller than in the fourth quarter of 2011. It is a bleak, bleak picture. The Minister should reflect on that and recognise that the current framework provides no incentive for new house building.
	We are seeing in many cases uncertainty in the planning system. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) rightly highlighted the degree to which uncertainty and potential litigation will be a damper on development in the coming months. We also know that a number of councils are quite openly seizing the opportunity to cut back housing consents. Against that background, I have to say to the Minister that his Government will be on record as producing the lowest number of new homes of any Parliament since the 1940s—far, far lower than the figures during the previous Parliament, 2005 to 2010, which included the depths of the recession, when 750,000 new homes were started. The present Government are on course for, at best, 600,000 homes, and the total may well be fewer than that. I urge the Minister to reflect on the consequences of his planning policy.

Nicky Morgan: I am conscious of time so I will keep my remarks as short as I can. I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Interests.
	Planning policy is an important subject. People care deeply about their local environment, the houses they live in and the houses around them, and the way that their villages and towns are developing. We have heard from Government Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), that there is a need for more family homes. We need more houses. My constituency inbox and caseload tell me that, but as others have said, we need houses in the right place and houses that deal with people’s lives as they live them, not as Government and local authorities want them to live.
	I thank the Minister. He deserves recognition for listening so carefully to all points made to him between the draft NPPF being published and the final version. A number of constituents have thanked me for the way in which the Government have listened on this important subject.
	As I speak, the plans committee at Charnwood borough council has been meeting for the past 27 minutes. I was asked to be there but I felt it was more important that I was in the House today to speak in the debate. The
	council is considering two important planning applications, among a number of others, which will affect the village of Quorn and the town of Shepshed in my constituency.
	I say to the planners in Charnwood and elsewhere that this is not business as usual. The NPPF came into force immediately after the Minister’s statement to the House on 27 March. Summarising the NPPF is not enough. We now need to think about the way in which proposed development fits within the definition and achieves sustainable development, taking into account the three dimensions—economic, social and environmental. All three dimensions in that definition go together.
	I want to make four points in the time available to me. First, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify—he may wish to write to me—the status of the regional spatial strategies. I understand that they are due to be abolished. They can be abolished under the Localism Act 2012, which is now law. The reason I raise the subject is that some officers still mention the RSS and in particular the housing targets when they give advice to plans committees. I know that my constituents are keen to know about that.
	As I said in my question to the Minister in the House on 27 March, the five-year land supply target is still a worry. I understand from my conversations with the Minister that these targets are now to be set by the local authorities, once they have gone through the housing assessment process. The targets must be deliverable. The new arrangements mean that councils are still vulnerable to having to say yes to developments because developers are saying that they do not have the five-year supply in practice. I am worried that officers are not taking into account recent applications that have already been approved.
	The importance of neighbourhood planning should not be underestimated. My parish council and town council are getting on with neighbourhood planning, which I think is fantastic. We have already heard about the over-interpretation of some words. Paragraph 74—I do not have time to read it out—relates to the loss of open space and is particularly relevant to an application in my constituency concerning allotments. The wording is very straightforward; I do not think that we need to over-interpret it. It says what it says, and that is that open spaces are not to be lost.
	Thirdly—I will have to write to the Minister on this point—it has been pointed out to me that the NPPF does not say as much about geology as it does about such matters as biodiversity. We have some very interesting rocks near Loughborough, in Charnwood—so interesting that Sir David Attenborough started one of his programmes there recently—so I think that we might want to hear a little more about geology.
	Finally, I welcome the fact that the underlying guidance is to be reviewed. I have mentioned before that the highways guidance and the manual for streets is often very important in deciding planning applications.

Iain Stewart: I, too, congratulate the Government on their revisions to the NPPF; they have genuinely listened to the real concerns that I and a good number of my hon. Friends put to the Minister. In particular, I thank him personally for the
	gracious way he listened to our concerns and for giving them a lot of time. I am pleased that he has taken them on board. I think that the document now strikes a good balance between the need to speed up the house building process and the need to protect our green spaces, which is what we all want to see.
	Together with the other elements of the Localism Act 2011, the measures are very welcome in my area of Milton Keynes. We want to grow. There is no nimbyism in Milton Keynes, but we want to be in charge of our own destiny. Instead of having the top-down targets that were imposed on us before, which led to the wrong type of development, as other hon. Members have said, we can now shape our future and our destiny and build the new city we want to see.
	I would like to challenge one of the comments the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made on the abolition of regional and national targets, which was that that somehow meant that local areas cannot co-operate with each other to develop infrastructure plans. I draw the House’s attention to an example in my constituency: the building of the east-west rail link. That involves co-operation between many local authorities on not only the railway line itself, but housing and economic growth projects. We are all working together exceptionally hard on that, so I reject her assertion.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not take any interventions, in order to leave time for other hon. Friends who wish to speak.
	My one specific point, picking up on the good point my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) made, is on the time scale for abolishing the regional spatial strategies. For reasons I will not go into, we all welcome that, but there is an issue in Milton Keynes about the timing of abolition. Our core strategy will be examined in July, and there is concern that, if the RSS is still in place during that examination, it might undermine the progress we are seeing on the localism agenda. I simply urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all he can to get the RSS finally abolished as quickly as we can. Apart from that small, specific point, I repeat my congratulations for what the Government have achieved. They have listened and had a genuine consultation, and I heartily support the new document.

Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In slimming down my speech to meet the four-minute time limit, I involuntarily forgot to mention my interests, which I normally declare at the start of a speech, so I would just like to put the record straight.

Nigel Evans: Thank you very much. That is properly noted.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am going to whizz through my speech and, I hope, leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) to make his comments.
	I welcome the NPPF and many of its changes, because I was not happy with the original draft document, as the Minister well knows. The Minister knows also that in Daventry we are part of a joint planning unit, with South Northamptonshire council and Northampton borough council, and, although we might struggle to have a local plan in place in 12 months, we have an emerging joint core strategy across the area. If it were to be adopted as a local plan post consultation, I wonder whether it could be treated as a local plan, because it would afford those areas the protection that they would like.
	I associate myself with the comments on the abolition of the regional spatial strategies and would very much like to be copied into the note—or if there is an answer today, even better—about the timing.
	The Minister knows my concerns about the Planning Inspectorate, and I understand that he has written to a constituent of mine, saying that there is a chance of its duties, or the inspectorate itself, being reviewed soon, so I should like to hear something about that.
	I would like a quick moment on renewable energy, my favourite subject. In previous answers to me, the Minister said that criteria can be set for renewable energy locally, but will he confirm that that could include the efficiency of such projects?
	I have one point about wind farms, because, owing to the confusion in previous advice, noise has become an issue in planning. The night-time limit on mining is 42 dB, but using the same metric, we are going to allow wind farms to be noisier, at 45 dB, so could the Secretary of State confirm that the list of revoked planning policies in the NPPF includes by implication the annexes and companion guides to all previously revoked policies?

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat at 5.40 pm, I call Mark Pawsey.

Mark Pawsey: I express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for their courtesy. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which undertook an inquiry into the draft NPPF that came out in July last year.
	It is important to understand the reasons for change, as people were not involved in the planning system. Many Members were councillors previously, and, of all the issues in which district councils were involved, the one that people understood least was planning. The system was very technical, with thousands of pages of guidance; house building was at very low levels, with 230,000 houses needed a year, and fewer than 100,000 delivered over an extensive period; the planning costs on businesses were significantly higher in Britain than throughout Europe; and the time taken to gain consent for planning was much longer here than elsewhere.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) was rather uncharitable in her remarks about the draft NPPF, because it was precisely that, a draft and for discussion, but in 2011 it led to an alarmist response. People talked about it destroying the countryside, concreting over the green belt and being a developers’ charter. There was even criticism of its very brevity—something that was a real benefit of the proposals to condense planning issues.
	The Government have listened, and it is pleasing for the Committee that 30 of its 35 proposals have been adopted. I was delighted that the Minister was able a couple of days ago to catalogue the many bodies whose attitudes have changed, not least those sporting bodies and, in particular, the Sport and Recreation Alliance.
	I shall deal with two or three key provisions, the first being enshrining the community role. I am delighted that my constituency has one of the neighbourhood planning frontrunners, in Coton Park. It was believed that the measure would be a charter for nimbys, but that is not at all the case, because people’s attitude towards development depends on how the question is posed. If they are asked, “Do you want to see a field built on?” their answer will be very different from the answer to the question, “Do you think that we need to provide housing in this community and somewhere for young people to get a start on the housing ladder?” I am very pleased that the first neighbourhood plan to be brought forward, in Dawlish, supports the development of housing. It shows that the fears of many people have been allayed.
	The NPPF enshrines also the importance of the local plan. In a Select Committee hearing, I asked the Minister, “What took precedence? The presumption in favour of sustainable development or the local plan?” and his response was categorical: decisions must be made in accordance with the local plan. The local plan is supreme, and I am delighted that my local authority has had its local plan in place for a number years. I fail to understand why so many authorities have been tardy in putting their local plans in place. When development proposals come forward under the new regime, the first criterion will be how they stack up against the local plan. Authorities must make plan making a greater priority, rather than trying to manage the development of their area by development control.
	Not only does the NPPF maintain existing provisions, but in many respects it enhances them. We now have additional protection for gardens, which recognises that gardens are green. That will do away with a lot of the garden grabbing. I am pleased that the proposals—

Nigel Evans: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I call Mr Jack Dromey.

Jack Dromey: On Tuesday, the Chamber resounded to paeans of praise to the Minister from the Minister. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that a decent man with an open mind has listened to the powerful case that was made by Labour, the countryside, heritage representatives, the business community and the Select Committees.
	There have been moves on brownfield development, albeit that they do not go far enough. Under Labour, brownfield development went from making up 50% of development to more than 70%. It is a mistake for the word “prioritising” not to be used. There has been progress on the intrinsic value of our green and pleasant countryside, on garden grabbing, on the sequential test and in the strengthening of the duty to co-operate.
	In our debates on the Localism Act 2010, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge
	Wells (Greg Clark) listened and acknowledged that we needed “larger than local” decisions. He could not use the phrases “regional” or “sub-regional” because he would have been sat upon by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, moves there were.
	This is no way to conduct a campaign—[ Laughter. ] Ours was a very good campaign. This is no way to conduct a debate on matters as important as this. Concerns remain about how the NPPF will work at the worst possible time, and significant weaknesses remain within it.
	The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) was right to celebrate the purpose of planning. I thought that he was going to go on to celebrate one of Labour’s greatest achievements, when in 1947 it introduced the post-war planning system that sought to reconcile the need for growth with a say for local people and protection for the natural environment.
	The planning system was not the problem that the Prime Minister pretended it was. It was preposterous of him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the problem with housing was the planning system. It was nothing of the kind. Planning applications were overwhelmingly granted speedily and there was development land with planning permission sufficient to build 300,000 homes. The fact that homes are not being built is nothing to do with the planning system; the principal problem is the failed economic and housing policies of this Government.
	This has been a master class in how not to conduct a debate, with polarisation and the demonising of critics. Even the usually sane Macmillanite Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) engaged in absurd hyperbole, criticising the National Trust as being akin to “Trots”.
	I have acknowledged that progress has been made. I will now turn to the problems. There is no vision for England—no spatial plan that brings together housing, economic development and infrastructure to ensure that if there is growth, all parts of England will grow.
	There are no longer any strategic planning mechanisms capable of dealing with the problems that exist. I will give one example. Stevenage badly needs to build thousands of homes, but it cannot meet the demand in Stevenage. It will have to build outwith Stevenage in Hertfordshire. The chances of Hertfordshire co-operating with Stevenage to ensure that its housing need is met are remote in the extreme.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was right to say that we have witnessed a remarkable collapse in the building of affordable housing—a 99% collapse in the figures for the past six months. We now see in the NPPF the potential downgrading of the importance of affordable housing. The Wolfson paragraph, as I have come to call paragraph 173, allows affordable housing to be traded off in the development process. Lord Wolfson complained on “Newsnight” about how a friend of his, a developer, hoped to develop a major site in Clerkenwell but was unable so to do because the council insisted on affordable housing. The council was absolutely right to do so, and it is wrong to downgrade its importance in development.

Anna Soubry: It is kind and generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Does he agree that it is imperative, as well as Labour party policy, to protect our green belt? Will he join me in urging Labour-controlled councils not to allow the development of thousands of homes on our precious green land?

Jack Dromey: Labour, as the champion of the countryside and the green belt, strongly believes in a brownfield-first presumption.
	On the subject of housing and more generally, our fear is that the planning system will be thrown into chaos at the worst possible time. Growth is key, but all the predictions from all those to whom we talk suggest that we run the risk of hiatus, confusion and planning by appeal. That is what the planners themselves believe. In a poll, 86% said that they predicted with certainty that there would be potentially years of such problems as the system bedded down.
	The Communities and Local Government Committee was right to say that brevity is not necessarily clarity. I am surprised that among the tributes read out on Tuesday there was not one from planning lawyers, because Ministers are the toast of planning lawyers. They believe that homes will be built as a consequence of the new NPPF, but they will be homes in Marbella—second homes for planning lawyers who make a killing on the back of the confusion and uncertainty that the Government are creating.

Andrea Leadsom: My father-in-law, who has been a listed buildings expert for his entire career, is delighted with the Government’s latest iteration of the NPPF and thinks it will add significantly to house building in this country.

Jack Dromey: I ask the hon. Lady to give my best regards to her father-in-law, even if his judgment is profoundly suspect.
	There are two problems with the transitional period. We agree with a plan-led approach without hesitation, but cash-strapped local authorities will struggle in the time available to develop plans that are crucial to protecting the interests of local communities, with those communities being at the heart of developing those plans. The neighbourhood planning process, on the other hand, is ill resourced by the Government, and we fear that it might well become the preserve of the better-off. We want neighbourhood planning and a real say for people in developing their localities, but that cannot be simply for those who can afford it.
	Has progress been made on the high street? Yes, it has. Labour, as the champion of the high street, was the first party to table amendments to the Localism Bill, and eventually the Portas review was announced. There is no question but that there is all-party support for the fact that the high street is now centre-stage. Although the Portas review takes us a long way in the right direction, the Government were wrong to reject some of Labour’s proposals that should have been included, for example in respect of retail diversity, to give local planning authorities real powers to ensure that our high street is protected, including from the flight to out-of-town retail centres.
	I say this in confusion—[Laughter.] That is what happens if you are sprinting. I say this in conclusion about the confusion on the Government Benches. Better the NPPF certainly is; flawed it remains. Will it work? Our fear is that, no, it will not.

Andrew Stunell: The Government welcome the opportunity to debate this subject both today and the day before yesterday. It is one of a series of parliamentary debates on national planning policy and demonstrates very clearly our commitment to ensuring that hon. Members have a full opportunity to discuss such important matters. Perhaps I can underline a point made clearly by my right hon. Friend the Minister on Tuesday: our view is that it would be right for the House to have an annual debate on the progress of the planning reforms and our planning system in general.
	The content of the final framework shows the seriousness with which we take the issue of consultation. The debate, in which we have heard 15 speakers, has yet again demonstrated how important it is to get these things right. Planning is how we create communities that work, how we create places that we can be proud to live in, and how we lay the foundations for businesses to grow to develop a prosperous country.
	All hon. Members want to protect and enhance our green spaces and our countryside, making both available for our enjoyment today and for generations to come. As has frequently been said, we have produced a document that is some 50 pages long, replacing 1,000 pages. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that simpler and shorter is not always better, but I have found it difficult to find anybody who believes that producing the guidance in the NPPF in the way that we have has not made it much more accessible and transparent. It has taken the mystification out of the planning process and means for the first time that ordinary members of the public have a realistic chance of understanding the decisions that are taken around about them, and of playing an active part in those decision-making processes without the need first to resort to people with two degrees in planning.
	The NPPF is a very important step towards localising the planning process. There have been plenty of references to neighbourhood plans, which are an integral part of the planning reforms we have introduced. No hon. Member has mentioned neighbourhood development orders, but they are another significant step forward, because local communities can take charge of their future and their area. Of course, that fits together with the local development framework of all planning authorities.

Helen Grant: The NPPF is a good and thoughtful document, but a couple of my constituents have raised concerns about the community infrastructure levy and said it might be a disincentive. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on that.

Andrew Stunell: I entirely agree that the community infrastructure levy is an important part of the planning architecture, and we will publish our proposals on it in due course.
	It is also right—this was reflected in the debate—that the planning process is not about creating a fictitious Disney World; it is about resolving tensions, and competing interests and goods. Hon. Members have acknowledged that we neither have the free-for-all, wild west scenario that some of our sternest critics predicted in July last year, nor are we retaining the top-down, lock-down alienating system we inherited in 2010. This balanced document is part of a balanced framework.

Anna Soubry: I know time is running out, but does the Minister agree that it is imperative that councils set their housing targets now and do everything they can to avoid building on our green belt, particularly in Broxtowe, where, unfortunately, Lib Dem councillors seem to think that it is a good idea?

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful contribution. It is one of a large number of well informed and important points that have been made during this debate, not least of course by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he said that the local plan is the keystone to our reform process. The local plan of the planning authority will be the guideline for development decisions in an area, with the neighbourhood plan of course forming an important statutory part in those areas that have plans in place.

Clive Betts: The Minister is talking about an improved system. When we add up the sum total of the planning approvals given for housing as part of the planning system that is being created, does he expect that number to be up or down on those given before the new system is put in place?

Andrew Stunell: The Chair of the Committee—incidentally, it made an extremely important contribution to our consideration of these matters—makes an important point. I say to him and to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) that as the targets went up under the last Government so the performance of housing went down. The idea that there is some connection between top-down, top-driven targets and performance on the ground is not supported by the evidence. What we maintain—and as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and others—is that there is clear evidence that when local communities are put in the driving seat they fully understand the need for homes and jobs for their children and grandchildren, as well as parks and recreation spaces.

Jack Dromey: On the figures, and comparing the record of the Labour Government and this Government, can the Minister confirm that in the first 18 months of this Government house building is down by 11% compared with the last 18 months of our Government?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman was honest enough to say that housing did not have centrality under the last Government—his words, not mine. The number of housing starts in 2011, the first complete year of the coalition Government, is higher than the housing starts in 2009, the last complete year of the Labour Government. We have a programme that has 170,000 social and affordable homes in it, and more
	than 112 contracts have now been signed with the Homes and Community Agency and various partners to make those homes a reality.
	In the limited time left, I shall address the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). If I do not respond to Members’ questions, I am more than ready to follow them up after the debate. The transition arrangements have been agreed with the Local Government Association, so it is somewhat petulant for it to complain. It is also absurd for it to complain that this document contains obscure language, when it is responsible for the 1,000 pages and obscure and impenetrable language, which only people with PhDs in planning can understand, of the planning policy guidance document.
	Some contributions to the debate demonstrated that local authorities are already getting to grips with the duty to co-operate. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) asked whether joint plans would be acceptable.
	I could talk at length, but I have run out of time. I look forward to hearing what Members’ queries I need to follow up on.
	Question  put  and agreed to .
	Resolved ,
	That this House has considered the matter of the National Planning Policy Framework.

PETITIONS

Value Added Tax on Savoury Products

Mary Glindon: I rise to present the petition of Greggs plc and other businesses signed by 306,773 people from across the north-east and the whole country. It asks that the Government’s Budget proposals to put VAT on freshly baked savouries be reversed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of customers and staff of Greggs plc and other businesses,
	Declares that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget proposals to introduce 20% VAT on savoury products served above ambient temperature will adversely impact the public at a time when they can least afford it; and that savouries that are not held hot should not be considered as hot takeaway food and should be zero rated for VAT.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its proposals to levy VAT on freshly baked savouries which are cooling down in an ambient counter.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001022]

M4 Link Road (Kingswood)

Chris Skidmore: I rise to present the petition of 1,543 residents of the Kingswood constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Kingswood constituency,
	Declares that an ‘M4 link road’ near Emersons Green would help to reduce congestion on the M4 from the Kingswood area; that such a road would reduce journey distances by residents by a significant distance and thereby reduce pollution; and that a link road would also help to boost the local economy and help to create local jobs.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the construction of a link road between the M4 and the Avon ring road (A4174).
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001024]

Biometric Centre, Leicester

Keith Vaz: I am delighted that more than 34 Members, including a former Home Secretary and a Minister, are present to hear the presentation of my petition. The petition is from the residents of Leicester who wish to have their own biometric centre. The Government have established local centres all over the United Kingdom. For the people of Leicester to get to their nearest biometric centre to provide biometrics, they have to cross the county border into either Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire. There are 945 petitioners.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Leicester,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that there are inadequate facilities for foreign nationals wishing to register biometric data for the purposes of residence permits in Leicester, with the nearest facilities located in Beeston, Nottingham or Derby.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider establishing a centre for the registration of biometric data in Leicester.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001023]

STATIC CARAVANS (VAT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to be on my feet again in the Chamber with an opportunity to talk about an issue that is so important to the people of east Yorkshire and coastal and rural communities around the land.
	East Yorkshire is at the heart of the caravan industry. I have a major manufacturer, ABI, in the centre of Beverley, suppliers to the manufacturers scattered around my constituency and parks dotted down the Holderness coast. For us, static holiday homes are a big deal. The presence of so many Members, despite the fact that it is a Thursday evening, when Members are normally thinking of moving back to their constituencies, demonstrates the depth and breadth of concern about this issue, not least among Government Members.

Brandon Lewis: rose —

Graham Stuart: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I should point out that I shall be the only person making a speech before the Minister responds, but because there has been so much interest in the debate, I shall give way to as many hon. Friends on both sides of the Chamber as I possibly can as we work together to persuade the Treasury to think again.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for outlining how generous he intends to be. He mentioned the depth and breadth of concern about this issue. In Great Yarmouth, the tourism industry is worth about £500 million, and an estimated 50% of our bed space is in static caravans. Over the years, they have come to have more in common with park homes than with mobile caravans. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might be a better way for them to be assessed?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall address that point in my speech.
	I ran a street surgery in Withernsea, a coastal town in my constituency, on Saturday. As I stood talking to people and handing out leaflets, perhaps as many as three out of 10 people said to me, “I’m not from round here, mate.” They were not staying in bed and breakfasts or hotels, because we have hardly any in the area; they were staying in static caravans. Two or three out of every 10 people going into Aldi, or into the bakery down the road, or spending money in the pubs were staying in static caravans. In addition to those directly employed in the manufacture of the caravans and in addition to the parks, however important they all are, the importance of visitors to the rural economy is immense. That is why there has been such a groundswell of feeling that this issue should be reconsidered.

Heather Wheeler: I have two firms in South Derbyshire that are particularly concerned about the new tax. One is Mercia Marina, and the other is Truma, which makes fittings for static and other caravans. They both believe that 20% of their business could be wiped out overnight, should the tax
	come into force. Would the Treasury be kind enough to look again at the cost-benefit analysis for this measure? It will find that wider areas, including tourism and jobs, will be greatly affected.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	I have good news, as I am sure the Minister will confirm later, in that the Government have listened to us. Hon. Friends on both sides of the House who represent East Yorkshire constituencies came together immediately after the Budget and we met the manufacturers. What we heard from them was chilling. The industry employs thousands in the manufacturing sector and tens of thousands in the parks. The Government estimate a 30% drop in demand, and that can only mean that thousands of jobs will be lost and that an industry that is struggling to recover from the credit crunch will be knocked backwards.

David Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has raised the central point. The aim of the Budget was, quite rightly, to encourage growth and jobs and to pay off the deficit. Is it not the case, however, that this particular measure is likely to destroy jobs and raise less money than we currently raise? It would therefore meet none of those objectives, and the Treasury ought to retract the measure in total.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have discussed this matter with the Chancellor, who has spoken to us about it separately on a number of other occasions. We also went in a group of 11 colleagues to see the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke). The reason for our only being 11 was that we did not think that there would be room for more around the table; it was not due to lack of interest. There is enormous concern about this issue.
	I am delighted to say that, when we debated the matter last week, the Minister agreed to extend the consultation. The Chancellor confirmed that it was a genuine consultation and that the Government would look at the evidence from us and from those out there in the industry—everyone should get involved in that—and would be prepared to look at the matter in the light of the impact that the measure will have.

Greg Knight: During the extended consultation, which we welcome, it has come to light that Britain is now in the throes of the worst economic slump for more than a century. Is that not a compelling reason on its own for the Minister to say, “I have reflected on this matter. I have decided that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time, and I am dropping it”?

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend is right. He and many other Members on the Government Benches who would not dream of opposing the Government’s general strategy, or even most of the specifics, have such profound doubts about this one policy that they are asking the Treasury to think again.

Lisa Nandy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point made to me by Pemberton Leisure Homes in my constituency that the measure will also
	have a profoundly damaging effect on apprenticeships? That firm employs 160 people, but it also has many apprentices. I know that the Government are keen to boost the number of apprenticeships. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure could be problematic for that policy objective too?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is right. I may have a chance to get to that issue later in my speech.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend referred to the Treasury’s own estimate that the measure may lead to a 30% reduction in demand. If that figure is correct, the measure will have a devastating effect on the parks in my constituency. However, I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s experience is the same as mine, but all my park owners are saying that they regard the 30% reduction as a gross underestimate. Osea leisure park, just one of those park owners, has told me that it believes that there could be a 60% reduction in demand for new homes.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, many parks have made major investments, some of them—I hate to say it, as one hates to talk about vulnerable businesses—are highly geared, and if there is a chilling impact and eddies of demand, notwithstanding a little additional demand before 1 October, we could subsequently see more than a 30% reduction, which could result in the closure of manufacturers and park businesses that have invested for the longer term in this excellent British tourism industry.

Anne-Marie Morris: Tourism is key to my constituency, and Dawlish Warren has a huge number of static caravans. Chilling figures given to me from Peppermint park in Dawlish Warren suggest a loss of 4,300 jobs just from the parks, with the loss of 1,500 jobs in the supply industry, 80 caravan distribution jobs and 1,400 from holiday homes manufacturers. If my maths is right, that is about 8,000 jobs lost.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I know will have been heard by Ministers.

Simon Hart: Does my hon. Friend understand the sense of bemusement among more than 20 firms in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire that were looking to the Budget for some form of stimulus but have ended up getting stifled? Will he put as much pressure as possible on the Treasury through his good offices to look at this issue again and to take the views of the House into account?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does he agree with Mr Ballantine, who runs Ideal Caravans in Langley Moor in my constituency, that the Treasury must look at this issue again if jobs are not to be lost in an area that is already experiencing high levels of unemployment?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is right, and the Treasury is looking at it again and has extended the consultation.

Mark Menzies: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Three caravan park owners saw me at my surgery on Friday. The people staying at their caravans visit Blackpool and the sort of areas that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) talks about—areas that are struggling and need support. I ask the Minister to think again about this tax.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who I see on the Front Bench, has organised a meeting with his local park businesses in order to hear their concerns this coming Friday. Again, that shows how close this issue is to all of us.

Stuart Andrew: This debate is fast turning into a tour of the country, so I welcome my hon. Friend to Pudsey, where the manufacturing company, Ellbee, saw the downturn coming and made the difficult decisions at the time to lay people off, going right down to the bare knuckle. With this proposal, the company will almost inevitably have to close. That will mean the loss of more jobs in an area that can ill afford to lose them.

Graham Stuart: According to the National Caravan Council, if we take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs forecast of a 30% reduction in demand, home production will reduce to 10,689 units—the lowest production level on record—with inevitable consequences for manufacturers, suppliers and parks.

Therese Coffey: I suggest that there has been a misunderstanding in the Treasury about the proportion of people who own such homes and stay in them for long periods at a time as against regular weekly letting. Does my hon. Friend know that if people stay in a hotel for more than 28 days, VAT does not have to be paid? Some parallels could be drawn.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right. I am not sure that I am ever going to get on to the issue of the non-anomaly that this measure is tackling. We are fortunate that Roger Tym & Partners produced a report on the economic impact of UK holiday parks in January this year, showing that 85% of static units are privately owned and that the remaining 15% are rented out as part of a park’s letting fleet. The market that will be most hit is the one that drives profits on these parks and drives investment. I do not think that the Treasury factored that into its calculations properly.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for arranging this serial intervention event.
	This afternoon I spoke to Lord Haskins, who is the chair of our local enterprise partnership and the business leader in Hull. He believes that the damage resulting from this measure will, at a stroke, remove all the advantages of our two enterprise zones and local enterprise partnership. Should not the voice of business take precedence in this debate?

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is right. He may not entirely share my sentiments when I say that the coalition has a great story to tell for east Yorkshire—the Humber bridge tolls have come down, and investments have been made in the A164, the Beverley relief road and the coastal communities fund—but I agree with him that this measure could have a devastating impact.

Peter Aldous: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury has failed to take full account of the impact of the proposal on jobs, which will cascade all the way down from manufacturers to small and medium-sized enterprises? Moreover, it will be concentrated in particular parts of the country, such as his constituency and mine, which will not be able to take that extra impact.

Graham Stuart: There is great fragility in isolated, sparsely populated rural areas. How many other jobs are there in such areas? Indeed, what other jobs could there be? The truth is that often there are none.

Tessa Munt: The caravans that are made in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency end up in the 79 caravan parks in my part of the south-west, which contains the second largest conglomeration of holidays of that kind. More than 6,000 people in my constituency own their caravans, but 900 of the caravans are part of a letting arrangement. Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure would have a catastrophic effect on the 26,000 people who have jobs in tourism—carpenters, plumbers, electricians, gardeners and cleaners? Many of them are part-time and seasonal workers.
	Holidays of this kind are provided for people with low incomes. Should we not reward them for their loyalty in holidaying in the United Kingdom? Moreover, many of them eventually move into bricks and mortar in my constituency because they have enjoyed their holidays there so much.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right.

Guto Bebb: According to the Treasury impact assessment, 750 businesses will be affected, but we estimate that 400 holiday parks will be affected in Wales alone, which would be a devastating blow for the economy of north Wales.

Graham Stuart: That is why I am grateful to Ministers for agreeing to listen to the evidence before reaching any definitive decision. Such a definitive decision has not been made, and I hope that when it is, it will be made in the right way.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Caravan park owners in my constituency want to know why, after 39 years of VAT, there should suddenly be an anomaly, given that there is a clear distinction in law between a travelling caravan, a residential caravan and a static caravan.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Graham Stuart: I will give way to my other colleagues shortly, but let me first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).
	The Finance Act 1972 introduced zero rating of certain caravans. The notes on clauses relating to what was then group 10 of schedule 4 referred to relief for
	“houses and other domestic accommodation”,
	and stated:
	“The caravans in the Group are akin to houses; they are too large to be towed on the road, and are usually permanently attached to the land.”
	The deliberate intention of the law, which was debated in the House—with no anomaly, no forgotten section, and no category of products that had been missed—was to treat caravans, other than those towed by cars, as “other domestic accommodation” in the same way as houses.

Mark Garnier: In my constituency, many people view static caravans as second homes. Is there not a case for the Treasury to treat them as second homes, subject to stamp duty, rather than making them subject to VAT like mobile caravans?

Graham Stuart: That would be consistent, because the qualities of a mobile caravan are completely different from those of a static caravan or a house. What are static caravans used for? They are second homes. Someone who buys a £240,000 cottage in one of the rural areas represented by my colleagues, which often means pricing out local workers, will pay tax of 1%, whereas it is proposed that someone who buys a static caravan for £24,000, a tenth of that amount, should pay 20%— 20 times as much—on a home that is used for precisely the same purposes. That is not getting rid of an anomaly, as Treasury civil servants originally suggested; it is creating an anomaly.

Craig Whittaker: BCA Leisure is a large company in the Calder valley. It does not employ thousands of people, but it does employ a couple of hundred. It does not own caravan parks or manufacture caravans; it produces parts that supply the caravan trade. The chief executive officer tells me that the proposed measure will deal a huge blow to his company and to other employers in the Calder valley. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be devastating not only to the tourism industry, but to manufacturing?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right.

Simon Reevell: rose—

Graham Stuart: I give way to my hon. Friend, who I know has similar concerns.

Simon Reevell: Jay-Be in my constituency is a company that took on workers when Silentnight had to close. It took them on to make beds and soft furnishings for the caravan industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that it now faces having to sack one fifth of its work force because of a provision contained in a Budget for growth?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right. All Government Members are committed to the aims and objectives set out in the Budget. We wanted a Budget for growth. We support lifting people out of tax; we support lowering corporation tax; we want investment; we want British
	industry to be supported. May of us are therefore gently but firmly—and, I hope, powerfully—saying to the Government this evening that this measure should be looked at again, and, as I have said, they have agreed to do so.
	Terence Higgins, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said in March 1973:
	“We have already distinguished between two kinds of caravan; the kind of caravan which is a home or a residence, and not normally the kind that one tows around—because even outside the West Country it would be too large to tow conveniently—and that which is not regarded as a home. Because of the general provision in legislation for relief from VAT for housing it was thought appropriate to include large caravans within the scope of relief.”—[Official Report, 20 March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 393.]
	Therefore, any suggestion that that was not considered by this House is false. I hope that will be reflected on.
	In June 1989, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, he said that there was no question of withdrawing zero rating from the purchase of static caravans. He was right then, and we should stick with that view now.
	I want to give the Minister 10 minutes in which to reply, if no other colleagues wish to intervene on me. [Interruption.] Give him eight minutes? Okay, fair enough. Finally therefore, let me pass on to the Minister some comments from a constituent of mine.
	Aaron Cambridge and I live in the same town, Beverley in east Yorkshire. He works at Willerby Holiday Homes, which in the most recent industry returns at the end of last year was listed as having more than 800 employees. It is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), whom I am delighted to see in his place. Even without this proposed VAT increase, Aaron has been on a reduced work schedule of three-and-a-half days a week for the past six months. He told me that he has worked in the caravan industry for 24 years and can never remember such hard times for the industry. That is the situation the industry is in now, before this possible VAT increase. There are 800 staff just at Willerby, which is a manufacturer, and we know that there tend to be many more associated jobs in supplier firms and others around a manufacturing centre.

Cathy Jamieson: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Lady rises to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. As that cannot be done in an Adjournment debate, may I ask her to make her intervention from the Bench behind?

Cathy Jamieson: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I still find the conventions of the House somewhat confusing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So do I!

Cathy Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Treasury should look again at the impact assessment? It estimates that it will take in some £35 million in 2013-14 as a result of this measure, but it should look
	again at the impact assessment to compare that with the amount of money that will be lost in the wider economy.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Lady is right. I have many more examples, including that of Laura Goldspink, who lives in my constituency and also works at Willerby Holiday Homes. Charles Gillett, who runs a business that is 100% reliant on the caravan industry, has talked of
	“an industry on a knife edge, struggling to emerge from the ravages of the recent recession.”
	He, too, pointed out that it is not 750 companies affected, but well over 2,000. Peter Smith, the chairman of the Swift Group—one of the leading employers in east Yorkshire, with 800 staff and a turnover of £200 million —has said:
	“A very conservative HMRC prediction is a reduction in demand of 30% which would lead to the lowest market figure for over a decade of around 11,000 units,”
	as we have discussed. He continued:
	“Such a reduction is likely to increase the cost of materials (due to economies of scale), make credit harder to come by and jeopardise the viability of manufacturers and suppliers.”
	I have said enough. Peter Smith put his finger on it, as have all the other Members who have spoken. The Budget is all about creating jobs, but if this measure is implemented, it would have exactly the opposite effect. What we ask, from both sides of the House, but particularly the Government Benches, is for the Minister to listen to the contributions to the consultation and reconsider.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sorry that we did not have time in this relatively short debate to hear most of the speech that the hon. Gentleman was holding in his hands.

David Gauke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on securing this debate. He has already made his case to me, leading a delegation of MPs to see me on 17 April, as he said, and I know that he has also made representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He also spoke passionately about the proposal in our debate on the Finance Bill on 18 April. I am pleased to have the opportunity in the time available to respond in more detail to the concerns that he and other Members have raised.
	Let me begin with some general points to put the measure in context. Removing the zero rate of VAT from static holiday caravans is one of a series of VAT measures announced in the Budget that are designed to make the VAT system fairer to all traders and easier to administer and comply with. It will help to create a level playing field by ensuring that all holiday caravans are taxed in line with the sale of other forms of holiday accommodation that have restrictions on permanent occupation, such as touring caravans, camper vans, narrowboats, timeshares and new holiday homes.
	Let me address two issues that were raised in my hon. Friend’s speech and in interventions. The first relates to revenue and costings, the second to the impact on businesses. First, the conventions used in the Treasury’s policy costings were set out in the 2010 Budget policy costings document. In brief, policy costings take account
	of direct effects on the tax base, but do not include indirect behavioural effects—for example, on employment, wages and salaries, or general consumption. However, the indirect economic effects are not ignored; instead, they are captured in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic forecast, taking into account, for example, the changes on the relevant sectors.

Diana Johnson: I am listening carefully to the Minister. There are 43 people chasing every job vacancy in my constituency this month. The Treasury is not going to make any money from introducing VAT on static caravans, as it has failed to take into account the undoubted unemployment that will result from this measure.

David Gauke: As I have said, the Office for Budget Responsibility takes into account the second-round effects of all measures in the Budget.
	Time is short, so let me turn to the demand reduction estimates and the figure of 30% that a number of hon. Members have quoted. HMRC has estimated that, as with what are described as “discretionary leisure durables”, expenditure on static holiday caravans will be impacted by the measure, with a 1.5% fall for every 1% increase in price. However, we should all be clear that this reduction in expenditure will apply only to static holiday caravans sold to the final consumer, and only to the proportion of the price of such caravans not already subject to VAT. The reduction in expenditure does not, therefore, apply to the approximately one third of caravans sold to caravan sites for rental. Their price should not change, as the caravan site will normally be able to reclaim the VAT in the usual way. That part of the static caravan market will not be affected by the measure. Neither will the measure affect the 20% of the price of a static holiday caravan that is already subject to VAT in respect of its removable contents.
	Taking account of those factors, the overall fall in expenditure should be less than the 30% reduction indicated in the impact assessment. That is because the estimated 30% reduction refers only to the specific parts of the market that will be impacted by the measure: sales to private individuals who cannot reclaim the VAT.

Graham Stuart: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Treasury did not do that much work on this? Where did it get the one third figure from? It is not one that I have heard from anybody. The Tym & Partners report, which is available and has been since January, talks about 277,760 owned statics and 49,600 rented statics. By no means is 49,000 one third of 277,000. It has been suggested that 750 companies will be affected, but the
	real figure is more than 2,000. The Treasury did not do its homework and Ministers are in a tough spot because they did not spot that.

David Gauke: That estimate was made on the basis of the evidence that the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had before them. The point I wish to make is that a genuine consultation is taking place and we look forward to receiving evidence that my hon. Friend has and others have, so that we can make a further assessment of those costings.
	Let me now discuss the impact on caravan manufacturers. We recognise that the impact on static holiday caravan manufacturers will not be trivial. The level of the impact will, of course, depend on the variety of products produced by those manufacturers. Many hon. Members are concerned about caravan sites, but it is worth bearing in mind that caravan holiday parks have a variety of sources of revenue, most of which will not be affected by the VAT change. Such sources include: charging a siting fee; running a shop; group insurance scheme commission; commission on the resale of used holiday caravans; and commission on letting on behalf of the owners—sub-letting—and so on.
	I recognise that applying VAT to the sale of new holiday caravans will not be welcome, as this has been a significant income stream for many parks. However, there is a good deal of flexibility within the range of products and services that caravan holiday parks offer to allow them to adapt their mix of business to the new VAT treatment of holiday caravans. I recognise that there are challenges involved in adapting to these changes in the tax regime, but there is scope for adaptation.
	The main point I wish to make today is that we would welcome any evidence provided through the consultation, which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, has been extended, be it evidence on the costing or on other matters.

Karl Turner: rose —

David Gauke: I have only one minute left, and I just wish to complete this point. We have listened to earlier representations, and we have extended the consultation period until 18 May to allow HMRC to engage further with representative bodies in order to better understand the implementation issues and how best to define a “holiday caravan” for VAT purposes. We are particularly keen to use the consultation to ensure that the new rules are workable and simple for businesses to administer. We understand the strength of feeling on this matter and genuinely want to listen to the concerns—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).